Enter Your Email Address & Get Updates Via Email:
Privacy PolicyExample
Palin wanted to ban library books
September 2, 2008 - 5:37pm — Anonymous Patron (not verified)
Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast."
More http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html
Technorati Tags: 
The LISNews Feeds
LISWire - The Librarians News Wire
- LISWire: Brazil (Ind.) Public Library Goes Live With Evergreen
- LISWire: CASLIS Announces Winner of the Information Specialist as Detective Contest
- LISWire: New Year: New MaintainIT Webinars (ALL FREE)
- LISWire: Ingram DigitalSM Adds to Expanding Roster of International Customers with Canadian Research Knowledge Network Deal
- LISWire: LISHost Announces Strategic Response to Podango Instability
Recent blog posts
- As to the Consumer Electronics Show & LISTen...
- The Google Generation & the Digital Transition
- People Who Use the Library are Mostly in Tranisiton
- Thinking About Radio
- New Year's short story
- I effing-published a book; so should you!
- 60 F in Buffalo?
- Netflix "Watch Instantly" quality
- Koyaanisqatsi
- Your tax dollars at work.... for something useful finally. Track Santa
Recent comments
- Bibliofuture
- JJ (not verified)
- Marc Roberson (not verified)
- Blue Knuckle (not verified)
- Bibliofuture
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Chuck
- birdie
- opaqueentity
- Anonymous (not verified)
Comments
Voters
If she was doing what the voters wanted done she was not necessarily injecting her religious beliefs. If the voters had not asked and she was looking into banning the books it would be clear that it was her personal motive.
The executive should be doing what the voters want.
Wrong
By your logic all you need to function as an ideal "executive" is a good pollster. Obviously worked great during the many years of institutionalized racism in the South when the executives were simply "doing what the voters wanted." I think we should expect quite a bit more of our leaders than just being rubber stamps for the popular will.
Palin banning books
'I think we should expect quite a bit more of our leaders than just being rubber stamps for the popular will.'
A main point of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution's Bill of Rights is the need for guides or laws to allow or require leaders to do the right thing, e.g., do not start wars or lie to the people or imprison people wilthout a trial.
Let's say a majority of
Let's say a majority of voters want to put you in jail for your criminal lack of knowledge of something called the US Constitution. Would that be ethical? I say let's do it.
Constitutional flaw
Was is the constitutional flaw in my argument? I said the executive has to operate under the constitution.
No, you said, "The executive
No, you said, "The executive should be doing what the voters want." You made no mention of the Constitution in your original post.
I agree with your statement, by the way. I think the executive should lock you up if that is what the voters want.
bull...
the government is supposed to uphold the constitution... banning books is not on the agenda!
I'm an ethics professor; you're an idiot
Here's a hypothetical: You the governor of a state in the U.S., the super-majority of your voters want to enslave Black people. Please note that this would not be an illegal act, as no legally binding higher authority has prohibitions against slavery. In fact in this hypothetical the highest legal and judicial authorities patently endorse the chains of slavery. Unfortunately though, many of the more advanced and modern nations around the world, and even thousands of citizens in the U.S. (under the leadership of other governors) abhorr the practice. So their influence is not binding for you. Since "the exective should be doing what the voters want," as you said, then you must be for it. Let's see, has this happened at point in our history? Hmmm... Read closely please: banning books is clearly as aggressively immoral as slavery. Every single instance of banning books has become a lightning rod in history - yet another example of our worst behavior as human beings. I encourage you to consult the list of banned books throughout history, as promulgated by religious extremists nearly every single time, and determine the value of that previous statement for yourself. Here's one to start with: De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. It was banned by the Catholic Church, even more powerful in Europe at the time than Mayor Palin in her time. It was written by a man Nicolas Copernicus with a central premise that the Sun, not the Earth was the center of the solar system.
"yet another example of our
"yet another example of our worst behavior as human beings." Wow. Just wow. I can think of many, many, many worse behaviors than book banning.
I may no expert in the law, but wouldn't a governor have to respond to federal law? If a state governor tried to "follow the will of the people" and impose slavery, wouldn't the federal government have some say so in all that? Please explain.
Banning?
I think a great leap has been taken here that is not appropriate.
If we stipulate that removal of certain books from a public library has occured (this is not the actual case, but since we are using hypotheticals I felt it not innapropriate) we cannot make the leap to conclude that the book has been banned. Simply removing a book from a public library because of its content, while repugnant, is not book banning.
Tolstoy has been banned in Russia - even the posession of some of his works was illegal. The Catholic Church long published its Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which threatened not criminal prosecution but eternal damnation. These are much more grave than simply removing a book about two penguins from a public library because the majority of the community does not wish it to be there.
I can still buy the penguin book at a bookstore, I would have been imprisoned for attempting to do the same with The Kingdom of God is Within You.
You are a professor?
Concerning your slavery comment...Have you ever read the Constitution? The 13th amendment or the first?? It is up to the people of Alaska to decide what books they want -this does not constitute violation of free speech. Congress did not pass a law that prevented the sale of these books. Alaska is within its rights decide what books to keep in their public library.
People decide?
I don't think, even in Alaska, that the library's collection development policy is decided by "the people" in some democratic fashion. Lord help us if it did as this might fall under that "tyranny of the majority" we were warned about in the Federalist Papers.
Then you must agree that we
Then you must agree that we should have gotten out of Iraq.
Executive
The base job of the executive is to follow the will of the people tempered by what is legal, constitutional, and morally correct.
Executive again
No. The job of the executive is not to follow the will of the people, which changes with the wind. The executive is better informed about the issues than the "people," who rely on the media (who, by the way, are probably the least "liberal" group in society, or at least have been for the past eight years) who often get things wrong or at best distort things by oversimplifying them. The executive has to work on his/her own judgment and that of his/her advisers, and it is the judgment of the individual candidate that voters are electing. In the case of Governor Palin--or at least Mayor Palin--that judgement includes a total disregard for the first amendment (the cornerstone of American civil liberties) both in attempting to control freedom of expression in banning books from the public library and, more generally, attempting to destroy freedom of religion by forcing her own religious beliefs on the community. This does not bode well for a Vice President, who takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States." There is no additional phrase in that oath that says "except for the first amendment."
What the heck
Man, I submitted this from my work computer and it came up under anonymous.
Geez, even when I try to stir up trouble something goes wrong.
We're not mind readers!
While Drupal may not be Slashcode, it remains imperative to still preview before submitting.
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F
Librarian's Best Friend?
The Palm Beach Post says that Palin "...exude[s] a naughty librarian vibe." http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_news/epaper/2008/09/02/binocol_0903.html?cxt...
The Times Online http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article4662805.ece
says " I love her beehive hairdo and glasses, the sexy librarian look."
Is sexy/naughty librarian supposed to be an oxymoron, or does this mean that librarians are breaking through the polyester ceiling of dowdiness?
Paper Tiger
Sarah Palin appears to have some ethics problems in dealing with employees. She seems to think government employees are her personal staff, and that municipal or state workers should do whatever she wants them to do. In fact, elected officers have relatively little power, and although she may want to kick around government employees, she is limited in what she can do to them or order them to do. She cannot tell government employees to disregard the laws, disobey the rules, or act unethically. And that covers an awful lot of territory.
The librarian does not have to jump when she says to jump. The chief of the Alaskan state police don't have to do everything she says or obey her whims. State acquisition and property disposal laws don't change simply because she wants them to change now. State and municipal employment regulations don't change, simply because she has a new office and title.
As governor she can threaten and can take some retribution, but that is open to other political pressure and this can really backfire on her, as it obviously is doing now. She can fire appointed officials, such as town's department heads, but not their career employees. The first time she comes against a federal employee union may be quite a shock to her.
I have seen this happen often (think of the Dilbert cartoons), and usually it happens to control freaks who want to advance in order to be able to order other people around. They often find when they get to the top, that they really have nothing to offer.
R. Lee Hadden (These are my own opinions!)
Do you know the facts or just jump to conclusions
I don't see any ethics problems - well other than those she reported and for which others were investigated and fined when she was on the Oil and Gas Conservation Board, from which she resigned because she felt there was a lack of ethics by the other members.
She rightly feels municipal and state workers who she supervises and whom legislation and regulation make at will employees of the mayor or governor can be subject to discipline by the person to whom they report. She is free to fire the head of the state police, and she was free to fire the police chief and librarian. The Court upheld her right to fire the Chief, and while no lawsuit was filed the residents petitioned for reinstatement of the librarian and Palin re-hired the librarian.
You can spin it any way you want, but there are no ethical lapses. There seems to be a panic thatwe may elect a conservative woman and mother - a woman just like many moms across the country with her own family's day to day problems - a woman who is not a lawyer nor beholden to special interests, someone who is very far outside the beltway, someone who dropped a dime of fellow Republicans when they acted unethically, someone who has executive experience - albeit in a small town and the largest state - but more than the opposing ticket. A smokescreen is being thrown up and it is unfortunate that many will fail to recognize it for what it is, a desperate grasping at straws attempt to discredit a woman who has performed ethically and conscientiously to the best of her ability personally, professionally, and politically.
No problem?
If you don't see a problem with removing books from a public library because some don't agree with the language in them, then our country is indeed in deep trouble.
I wonder if Orwell's "1984" is in that library. It is eerily coming true.
Too bad we don't know which books - that would be very interesting.
Palin had some interesting
Palin had some interesting responses to the Eagle Forum when she was running for governor in 2006.
Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?
Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.
I'm fine with parents removing their children from books. I'm less okay with the state removing books from children.
"Yes. Parents should have
"Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught." was her response. The rest was me.
SHe is so hot
I am not even in to women and find her insanely hot!
Killing Puppies
I am pretty sure that Palin also wants to kill puppies. Palin hates everything that liberals love. Especially puppies, kittens, and books.
Palin's problem
Palin's problem is that she wants to "remove" the public choice. She wants a diverse population to conform to her narrow standard. It's a public library not her private collection. She's just like any other politician. Where's the "freedom" she talks so much about? What about the freedom to choose? I'm not just talking about books. What about reproductive rights? You're so fond of freedom until you disagree with the choice. Typical.
What a leap
You went from library books to reproductive rights. Is that a euphamism for abortion?
Reproductive rights are all about choice, you know like her daughter could have chosen not to have sex, but she didn't make that particular choice - she chose the other option, so now they chose not to murder the child.
Seems like Governor Palin and her family are making all sorts of choices, just not the ones you like.
Reproductive rights.
I think the public has a right to give her crap about her advocacy of abstinence only views for children when she wasn't parent enough to make it work in her own family. The least she should do is admit that her views aren't necessarily valid for everyone and stay off her high horse when its dead on it's feet.
I'm sorry
It may be best to take a break and cool off. Play the issue, not the person. If that is something that can be mastered even at the blog known as Slugger O'Toole (they cover politics in Northern Ireland), I think it should be a simple matter to do so here in the US.
I agree with Matt that to go from book banning to discussing abortion is one heckuva conceptual leap. There are other sites, such as DailyKos or Democratic Underground, that would be more appropriate places for such. I do not ever want to push people away but it is very difficult using the site when one encounters such venomous, hate-filled, mean-spirited, and frankly evil utterances that are way out there in terms of incivility.
Please take a break, relax, and not get your blood pressure too high. Life is far too short for such bile.
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F
I don't think it's a conceptual leap
I agree with Matt that to go from book banning to discussing abortion is one heckuva conceptual leap.
From everything I've seen, banning both are part and parcel of the same mindset. And Matt did not open a discussion about abortion, he pointed out that that this anti-rights advocate supported both book banning and control over the choices other women make.
Control over what information you may have access to, and how to run your own life, in other words.
There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.
You want a leap?
Since you tout Palin's choices, what about opposing sex education, opposing contraception, wanting abstinence only taught - how well has that worked out in her own family?
More failed, unrealistic, policies - she wants to impose on all.
Do you believe her daughter or the boyfriend really have a choice now? I don't - it's a shotgun wedding.
What century are we in?
I don’t care if someone is a Republican or Democrat, the suggestion of banning books to suit each town is wrong! It would mean depending on where you live that if you are in a conservative community ban all liberal books & vice versa. Every citizen should have the right to read & learn from a variety of literature. My mother-in-law reminds me when she lived in Germany during WW2 that it was so heart wrenching to watch people burn books that the government did not seem suitable for Germans. I want to make it clear that I am using this as someone’s experience & not at all suggesting that Ms. Palin is a Nazi . However, government officials should not decide what citizens should be allowed to read.
Sheesh
A Nazi is a Nazi, no matter what political moniker they wear. And a book banner is a Nazi.
Simpleton
That comparison is an absurd oversimplification that insults millions of people.
Hah!
So is the idea that certain materials need to be banned because a small group claims they are "offensive".
There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.
Book banning and Nazis
The comment was indeed an oversimplification, though I'm not sure you would find a more detailed answer any less insulting. While all Nazis are book-banners, it does not necessarily follow that all book-banners are Nazis. Book banning is characteristic of any totalitarian government that limits personal freedoms--this includes communist governments, fascist military dictorships that are not necessarily Nazi (Saddam Hussein's government, for example), and other absolutist governments controlled by religious extremists--like some modern Muslim states (e.g., Afghanistan under the Taliban) and some medieval Christian states (like those that burned the Talmud in the 13th century). So those millions of insulted people may not necessarily be Nazis. They might only be extremists of some other kind who want to limit personal freedoms.
Book banning alone
Book banning alone was not the indescribable atrocity of the Nazi regime.
Even if we agree that book banning is abhorent, it is certainly not the most vile act of the Nazis.
I am not concerned about insulting Nazis, but to suggest that book banning is remotely comparable to the true atrocities - the murders, the genocide, the torture, the unspeakable violation of human rights, of the Nazis is simply insulting to those who lost their lives, their dignity, their future, and their families at the hands of a government led by a madman.
I would gladly burn all of my books to save one innocent life.
Book burning is symptomatic of those who would burn people
They burned writings during the witchhunts too.
There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.
Censorship is unacceptable
I am a librarian and as a public servant it is crucial that the public have open and uncensored access to information. Period. End of story. There is no instance in a free society in which government officials should use their clout to remove materials they deem inappropriate. Librarians are for the people and fight endlessly for the right of the public to have information at their disposal. Whether a book is inappropriate or not cannot be judged by anyone. Free access to all
"Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go into your library and read every book. -Dwight D. Eisenhower ( A Real President)
Librarians Against Palin
It has been reported in multiple news agencies, as well as direct quotes from the Wasilla librarian in 1996, that Sarah Palin attempted to censor books from the public library during her tenure as Mayor. At the same time that the librarian balked at her request, Palin drew up a letter of termination for the librarian - which was withdrawn after a public outcry and a threat of recall.
Please see htttp://librariansagainstpalin.wordpress.com for references to the news article, commentary & discussion.
From the link you posted the
From the link you posted the following were retrieved:
From a link to the WSJ: "Ms. Palin didn't ask Ms. Emmons to remove any particular books."
From a post attributed to School Library Journal: "It doesn’t appear, however, that any books were actually banned, says Pinnell-Stephens, who documents book challenges in the state but couldn’t find any evidence in her files and doesn’t remember any conversations with Baker about the subject." ( Pinnell-Stephens is head of the AK Lib. Assn Intellectual Freedom Committee and entrusted with maintaining records of challenged books).
In a post attributed to the Anchorage Daily News: "Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed."
The owner of the blog notes that he or she does not know what books Governor Palin attempted to have banned. The truth of the matter is that the Governor Palin never asked to have any books banned, so a list of such titles does not, and cannot exist.
You state that Governor Palin 'Drew up a letter of termination" for the librarian when indeed that is simply not true.
Governor Palin, when assuming office as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska asked for the resignation of several previously appointed staff that serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
Another posting attributed to the Alaska Sitka Sentinel notes: "Wasilla’s New Mayor Asks Officials to Quit"
This is not at all an uncommon practice. In fact Gavin Newsom may of San Francisco asked all City department heads, as well as all mayorial appointed city commissioners, and senior staffers in his inner circle to hand in their resignations.
The mayor of Fall River, MA asked for resignations upon his election in January 2008.
Pittsburgh Mayor Ravenstahl asked 10 directors and authority chiefs to resign. The article notes "Mr. Ravenstahl said part of the consideration was simply to get his own people in place, an opportunity delayed given the tragic way in which he came to power."
You have provided no authoratative evidence that Governor Palin, when Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska asked to have any books removed from the public library. Your assertion that her request for resignations of department heads was somehow improper, and unusual is refuted by the recent examples of three Democratic mayors having made identical requests. It is evident that such requests are commonplace when executive administrations change.
Your allegations against Governor Palin are baseless and as a librarian you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such without verifying the facts.
There may indeed be reasons why you dislike the Republican Party's choice of their vice-presidential candidate, but to willfully post unfounded accusations rather than specific truthful postitions of Governor Pailin with which you disagree denegrates the profession of Librarianship. You are no credit to the profession.
Gezz
The majority of the people are not always right, therefore the leaders we vote in must uphold the constitution at all costs. Also, Palin was abusing her power by threatening this librarian's job, and this should be a concern of all Americans. This is a practice we have seen throughout history in dictatorships.
We should be looking deeper
Our emotions are not a tool for making decision or placing judgment. Can we just look at the facts and then make a decision? Look for the answers to the questions yourself. It's not about a woman or any woman running the country. The question should be who is the woman and is her character, ethics and values in line with what is CLEARLY most important to run my country, in case the president is not able to. Sen. Hilary would have made a great VP had she not crossed the "emotional" line and starting acting out of desperation. We know of her and a lot of her values are in line with mine [democrat or not]. Gov. Palin sounds like a descendant of Hitler’s from what I’ve heard and read about her. She has close family connections/ relatives who are closet skin heads. She wants to control/ keep information from people. Not allowing people to be educated on any subject is communistic [controlling] by nature. Over exerting your power more than once without real correction is unacceptable. Let's not sound like a cult; the lady can do no wrong and all is well with our souls because she is a woman running for VP? Nor is it a direction we really want to continue. The country is headed/ in the worst position with itself and around the world. We don’t own our own communications anymore and if we keep doing what we have done, expecting a different result is insanity... just crazy. I thought we were to leave things in better position than when we got them, at least a little for everyone. We’re in debt up to our ears to China and others, Rupert Murdock has control/ ownership of our communications and the oil company’s are making over 300% profit while most company’s are loosing profits and closing down. The financial infrastructure is crumbling and you all are telling me that Gov. Palin could be our next president? And that is OK? I guess the Bush’s haven’t burned us enough [S&L scandal and state of our country]? It’s like a bad dream that continues on but WE CAN wake up!
Amazing
First you suggest that we not make emotional decisions, then you compare Governor Palin to a murderous dictator.
Why should anyone take you seriously.
Governor Palin does not have any relatives that are 'closet skinheads'
She does not want to control or keep information from people.
She is not 'communisitic, and frankly your post degrades from there.
Use authoratative sources, and choose the persons you feel will best serve our country. That is what we all can do. Librarians can certainly help you gather factual, authoratative information. Good librarians will help you see all sides of the issues so you can make your own choice.
Hunh?
The only control or ownership that Rupert Murdoch has would be over Fox. That's it.
NBC is part of NBC Universal. What are some other properties involved there? Sci-Fi Channel, MSNBC, USA Network, NBC Universal Sports, CNBC, Telemundo, Hulu, and iVillage among others. NBC Universal is partly owned by Vivendi which is a competitor to Mr. Murdoch as well as General Electric. To the best of my knowledge, Murdoch is not invested in either.
ABC is owned by Disney. It is hard enough to oust any Disney family influence so I do not understand such to have any cognizable control by Murdoch.
CBS is a property of National Amusements which is a privately held media company concentrated in the Redstone clan.
The CW is a joint venture of CBS and Warner Brothers.
What does Murdoch have at least some control over? Fox, Fox News Channel, MyNetworkTV, FX, half of SpeedChannel, FSN, TV Guide Channel, and more.
To say that we have monolithic control over television content let alone other such communications means is willfully ignorant.
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F
Network news
I watch Univision and Telemundo (and TV Azteca but not its US one Azteca America) much more than I do most US network news.
I thought Rupert was Stewie's bear.
Why is this thread still aliiive?
dont email threads end after references to Nazis and Hitler!
But sir!
You seem to not comprehend the power of Google on this online world. Think PageRank...
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F
Palin's family make the US look like a bit too Jerry Springer
Form an outsider that finds your shit country quite amusing!