Palin wanted to ban library books

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

Topic: 

Comments

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.

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.

A Nazi is a Nazi, no matter what political moniker they wear. And a book banner is a Nazi.

That comparison is an absurd oversimplification that insults millions of people.

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.

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 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.

They burned writings during the witchhunts too.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

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)

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

dont email threads end after references to Nazis and Hitler!

You seem to not comprehend the power of Google on this online world. Think PageRank...
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F

Form an outsider that finds your shit country quite amusing!

Pages