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."



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

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.

Librarian's Best Friend?

The Palm Beach Post says that Palin "...exude[s] a naughty librarian vibe."

The Times Online
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?

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


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."


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.

Then you must agree that we

Then you must agree that we should have gotten out of Iraq.

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.

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.


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.

"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.


the government is supposed to uphold the constitution... banning books is not on the agenda!

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.


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.

Syndicate content