List of Books Palin Tried to Have Banned

[sleepy]

I think my posting record speaks for itself.

 

Of course it does, sweetie. :grouphug: It's all good. :001_smile:

[Plucky]

It's a little too trivial to do that. It's just a nice kids' story with a somewhat smarmy bit at the end about love triumphing over evil, madness, and mind control.

 

I suspect that the reason it gets challenged is that there's a line in there (of minor importance) that puts Jesus among a list of people who've contributed to the betterment of the human race. Ultra-conservatives probably read it and think, "Oh! She's saying that Jesus is the same as Buddha!" and don't want their kids to read it.

 

*shrug*

 

ETA: I first read this as an adult, however, with some fairly weighty reading already having influenced my spiritual ideas. I can see why a child might find it more influential, esp. if it were the first "love conquers all" reading he'd done.

 

I agree. My 11yodd just read it and we talked before and after she read it. She loved the book and couldn't put it down but it didn't shake her faith.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Rough Collie--I was going to say the same thing. This list looked awfully familiar to me. I've seen it before.

 

I still don't understand some of the titles and why anyone would want to ban them, but, I guess they have their reasons. It reminds me of that scene in Footloose! You know, Kevin Bacon, dancing, music.....what were we talking about?:001_smile:

[Lakeside]

That's an interesting idea to ponder. I'm not sure that parents who don't want to look at a review of a book would be bothered to stop and look at a warning in a book. Informally, I've come to view the label "Young Adult" or the Newberry award appearing on a book as a warning that it will be either full of sex and curse words, or have disturbing themes.

 

 

Rose, can you explain a bit more about your view of the Newberry books? I didn't realize they were so objectionable.

 

FWIW, I think your intent was to have a discussion on book-banning, not a session of Palin-bashing.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Yup, that was my point. I had to admit that my eyes bugged out when I saw you had posted something with "Palin" in the subject line, Rose, :lol:

 

You will never see that again.

 

Can I ask, though ... you're an anarchist, right? Do you vote?

 

I prefer the term libertarian socialist, just 'cause it's so much fun to watch people say, "What? How can . . . " and stutter. From Wikipedia:

 

Anarchist communists propose that a society composed of a number of self-governing communes with collective use of the means of production and direct democracy as the political organizational form, and related to other communes through federation would be the freest form of social organisation.[65] However, some anarchist communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and favor consensus democracy.[66]In anarchist communism, individuals would not receive direct compensation for labour (through sharing of profits or payment), but would instead have free access to the resources and surplus of the commune.

 

I don't advocate it wholesale, but this comes the closest to representing my preferred form of government. I feel strongly that the whole idea of ownership of food should be universally rejected, and that is the only party line to which I am strongly attached. The rest I go back and forth on as I learn more.

 

Yeah, I do vote. I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to vote for a candidate I want to see in office, but I see no reason not to pitch one in for the lesser evil. Since I can't vote anarchocommunist, I try to vote libertarian, and since that hardly ever is realistic, I often vote for whichever Republican or Democrat is likely, based on his or her previous actions, to stay out of the way of the freedoms I'm most scared for at the moment.

[PariSarah]

Until they came for a book you valued. If we stand by as books we see no value in are taken from libraries then we've let the precedent be set by which others can be removed as well.

 

. . . a certain weightiness to one's reasons. The precedent is that when you have limited space, you choose wisely. You don't choose lightly. You've got the collective weight of history informing your choices.

 

I guess I just don't have that impending sense of doom. This country is a generally good place to be, and we're capable of a lot more nuance than some people give us credit for. Removing that nuance gets us in a lot more trouble than the reverse. Applying the "camel's nose under the tent" theory to every situation is unnecessary and unwise. Political life requires prudence and sensitivity and depth.

[Peek a Boo]

Have I smeared Palin in the other political threads?

 

Nope, not until this thread.

 

I absolutely agree w/ Aggie and MamaLynx on this one.

 

List of Books Palin Tried to Have Banned

 

smear:

3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization

 

List of Books Palin Tried to Have Banned

 

i hope your intentions for intelligent discourse extend to expressly recantinga lie that very well may have been just "poor judgement." Ideally, this post would be deleted and you could repost the list w/ a non-smear title---you could even include that the allegations against Palin led to this list resurfacing.

 

I really, REALLY hope you did not perpetuate this by forwarding whatever shows up in your inbox. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to reply to ALL and insist on verification and remind them that there is no PROOF to this list at. all.

 

I'm voting this thread "terrible"-- it IS a terrible unsubstantiated allegation, and maybe it will draw people in to see what the train wreck is all about so they can see SOMEONE ELSE post the TRUTH.

 

I don't think "The email that I received with a list of books Sarah Palin may or may not have tried to get banned" would have fit.

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

no, but ALLEGED would have gone a long, long way and fit perfectly.

intent.

 

I'm not sure why it really matters what was on the list. The simple fact is that she tried to have some books removed from the library. I'm not sure that makes or breaks anyone's decision is regards to whether they support her or not but it does show that, at the time (it would be interesting to see if her view on book banning has changed), she didn't understand the purpose of a library or the seriousness of what she was attempting to do.

 

No, that is not a "simple fact" --it is a simple ALLEGATION at this point, w/ NO PROOF to even BEGIN toback up that allegation.

The rhetoric here shows that most people don't understand the administrative politics or seriousness that goes in to running a city or state gvt. Apparently some do not understand what a FACT is either.

 

here's an example of a FACT:

 

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=2008campaign&position=7

 

Article with headline Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books :

 

"Were any books censored [or] 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. "

 

Meanwhile, a reader replied to Malkin's post about this:

 

"Reader Martin: “If you read the Anchorage Daily News article, towards the bottom, you find that Palin requested the resignations not only of the librarian, but of several other township officials. Why? Because they were political appointees who openly supported her political opponent. Palin requested the resignations a few days BEFORE she assumed office, apparently for political reasons, as would be routine in ALL such situations, including in the very small town of Washington, DC. [Didn’t some no-name politician fire all of the US Attorneys?] Frankly, it’s far more remarkable (and shows a great deal of tolerance) for Palin to have KEPT Emmons in office. And you’d think people would consider the source when Emmons claims Palin wanted to ban books.†"

 

 

Thank you, RC.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I took you at your word about the intellectual exercise part, and answered accordingly below.

 

Thanks, PariSarah. I am overwhelmed! I feel like I should stay here and get all intellectual to prove I wanted to, but it's 11 am and I've hardly said three words to my kids. I'll be back.

[swellmomma]

I have more than half those books on my home booksshelves,a nd a few more that I have read but don't have a copy of. Some I can understand not liking for your own kids, but can't see banning them all together. ANd to ban Canterbury Tales by Chaucer is insane, We studied it in college, and see no problem with my kids even in high school studying it. Regardless if it is one person who wanted to ban them or from a general list, I am always surprised and shocked when I see certain titles/authors like Chaucer listed.

[dragons in the flower bed]

.

Public education in this country has to deal with religious and cultural pluralism--which means erring on the side of caution with respect to potentially offensive material. Much as I find redeeming and beautiful in Lewis's "The Horse and His Boy," I would not cry foul if a school district with a heavy Muslim population decided to take it off a "recommended reading" list, or asked a teacher not to use it in her 4th grade reading group.

 

And this is where, I think, book banning in libraries and schools can be an analogy for the general issue of balancing the needs of a large and diverse population against those of the individual. Our libraries and librarians have dealt with this issue with such wise and gentle grace for two hundred years. I think we could learn something from them about public policy in general.

[Peek a Boo]

"official Obama website"--

 

as i was googling, i came across this website

http://www.fightthepalinsmears.com/smears/banned-books-and-fired-librarian/

 

that says "Also, Obama's own website is furthering this fraudulent list [7]."

 

but when you click on the #7 footnote, it takes you to a MY.barackobama.com website --that's not "the official" website. It is a blog.

 

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/markbrickman/gG5rK5/commentary

 

however, i did notice that it is giving an error message now, so unless someone took a screenshot of it, it's gone. But even if it WAS perpetuated on the blog, that does not make it endorsed campaign material.

 

 

eta:

i posted too soon --someone DID capture a screenshot, lol!

 

http://www.okieonthelam.com/?p=2296

 

another edit:

 

this is the poster on the Obama blog that perpetuated the list:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/markbrickman

 

"Mark Brickman is a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama in California and ultimately the United States."

he doesn't appear to be an official member of the Obama campaign.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I really, REALLY hope you did not perpetuate this by forwarding whatever shows up in your inbox. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to reply to ALL and insist on verification and remind them that there is no PROOF to this list at. all.

 

Yeah, no, I don't forward things. Someone on this board had expressed, in another thread, a curiosity about what books Palin had wanted to have banned. I am lucky not to have anyone in my life that forwards things like that.

[Mama Lynx]

 

I prefer the term libertarian socialist, just 'cause it's so much fun to watch people say, "What? How can . . . " and stutter. From Wikipedia:

 

Anarchist communists propose that a society composed of a number of self-governing communes with collective use of the means of production and direct democracy as the political organizational form, and related to other communes through federation would be the freest form of social organisation.[65] However, some anarchist communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and favor consensus democracy.[66]In anarchist communism, individuals would not receive direct compensation for labour (through sharing of profits or payment), but would instead have free access to the resources and surplus of the commune.

 

I don't advocate it wholesale, but this comes the closest to representing my preferred form of government. I feel strongly that the whole idea of ownership of food should be universally rejected, and that is the only party line to which I am strongly attached. The rest I go back and forth on as I learn more.

 

Thanks! I tend to refer to myself as a conservative libertarian. However, I think what you are describing can work really, really well for small groups, or on a local level - especially concepts like non-ownership of food. I think there are too many problems with it on a national level.

 

Yeah, I do vote. I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to vote for a candidate I want to see in office, but I see no reason not to pitch one in for the lesser evil. Since I can't vote anarchocommunist, I try to vote libertarian, and since that hardly ever is realistic, I often vote for whichever Republican or Democrat is likely, based on his or her previous actions, to stay out of the way of the freedoms I'm most scared for at the moment.

 

Sigh. Me too.

[Christy B]

Has anyone here found that A Wrinkle in Time challenged their religious beliefs? I don't remember that when I read it, but I was kind of prereligious at nine years old. I first became aware that it has a spiritual component when I saw it on a womyn's reading list. I would love to learn what sort of spiritual effect it's had on people.

 

Her books have an effect on my spiritual understanding every time I read them. I always find something new. I first read her books when I was about nine years old, too, and most of it went right over my head. When I reread all of her books in my teen years, I realized that the God that L'Engle believed in was much, much BIGGER than the God I had been taught about. So, L'Engle's books were the first and biggest step in my discontent with "status quo" Christianity, my introduction to the fact that there was a HUGE difference between spiritual reality and Christian religion. I haven't figured any of it out yet, I just credit L'Engle with opening my eyes to the fact.

 

The potential use of political influence* to intimidate and effect censorship is alarming. I understood the spirit and purpose of your post was to discuss the book list, so I'll leave it at that.

 

ETA: *Parental influence, IMO, is a whole different ballgame. Ultimately, if you must have 100% control over your child's reading material, well, you should homeschool. That said, I think there is room for parental rights to influence reading material in public schools. I do see a difference between a group of concerned parents acting on behalf of their own children, and a lone political figure acting on behalf of a political agenda.

[The Governess]

I highly doubt that Palin tried to have all of the books on this list banned. Maybe these books were controversial when they were written. But there are a lot of books on here that are now widely considered classics. It's hard for me to believe that she's out trying to ban To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn. :glare:

[teamturner]

88. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

 

:blink:

 

Why would a dictionary ever be on a banned books list??

 

Unless they're bad spellers? ;)

 

 

Or #77 The Living Bible!! Something is very strange indeed about this list. Did anyone notice that To Kill a Mockingbird is on the list as well?

[Peek a Boo]

Yeah, no, I don't forward things. Someone on this board had expressed, in another thread, a curiosity about what books Palin had wanted to have banned. I am lucky not to have anyone in my life that forwards things like that.

 

 

o...k.....

you had mentioned previously:

"It [the list of "did you know this about Biden?" ]wasn't in my inbox this morning. If it shows up, I'll be sure to post it."

 

so i [apparently wrongly?] assumed you had received the link to a New Hampshire candidate's blog [your original source for the alleged info] as something you had received in your inbox. I'm guessing you are a just a reader of the blog then? since you are lucky to not have anyone in your life who forwards things like this?

 

or you googled for more info after someone else expressed a curiosity about books Palin would want to have banned? but don't want to google for info about Biden?

 

since your intent and non-smear reputation was called in to question, I figger it's only reasonable to give you every chance to clear the air.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I'm guessing you are a just a reader of the blog then? since you are lucky to not have anyone in your life who forwards things like this?

 

or you googled for more info after someone else expressed a curiosity about books Palin would want to have banned? but don't want to google for info about Biden?

 

since your intent and non-smear reputation was called in to question, I figger it's only reasonable to give you every chance to clear the air.

 

Gosh, this is starting to feel like an inquisition. :D In the interest of full disclosure, I saw a twitter feed about it, remembered the question, and went a-Googling. The inbox statement was just a turn of phrase, a play on the modern form of the idiom, "fell on my doorstep." I'd promise to bring up something about Biden if something sparks my interest, to balance it out, but I figure it's time for a board break. I will see ya'll on November 5th!

[PrairieAir]

I'm not sure why it really matters what was on the list. The simple fact is that she tried to have some books removed from the library. I'm not sure that makes or breaks anyone's decision is regards to whether they support her or not but it does show that, at the time (it would be interesting to see if her view on book banning has changed), she didn't understand the purpose of a library or the seriousness of what she was attempting to do.

 

The talk of book banning is one of the things which has disturbed me about Palin. I'm taking it with a grain of salt until I get more specific information on that though. So far it sounds as though the idea of banning books is one that she entertained briefly and asked about at a city council meeting or something along those lines. (The details have been pretty fuzzy. Maybe I've been listening to too much chatter.)

 

Do I believe in banning books? No, but as a parent there have been times when I have been concerned enough to entertain the idea. It was something I really had to think through and about which I even spoke to other people. Those were discussions along the lines of, "Should we ban books? Why or why not? What consequences could banning only a few of what we find the most objectionable books eventually be?" Those seem like reasonable questions for a thoughtful person to ask. The conclusion I came to is that I do not believe in book banning, though there are several books I do not care to see in the picture book section of the library where my young children can come across them while looking for books and ask me questions for which I don't feel they are ready to hear the answers.

 

Heather Has Two Mommies is one of the books which prompted me to ask myself these questions when my 5yods came across it and asked me why Heather would have two mommies. It's not that I didn't ever want to discuss homosexuality with my children, just that I resented being forced in this way to explain it to a child who I felt might be too young to understand, particularly given our personal and religious view that homosexuality is a sin. (As is mistreating other people--homosexuals included--along with a list of other things many of us do at some point in our lives such as lying, so no tomatoes for that.) Perhaps if we had known a child in this situation or someone who was homosexual it might have been necessary to discuss this topic with our children at an earlier age, but that was not the case. I offer that only as a personal example and because that specific book has been mentioned in this thread.

 

In the end, I decided that I feel it is the individual's (and in the case of a young child, the parent's) responsibility to judge which books are suitable for themselves and not for an entire community. I had to ask myself the questions first in order to come to that conclusion, though. I can't fault Sarah Palin for asking those same questions. If it turns out this went farther than what I am understanding, then I'd be more uncomfortable with her for that reason.

[PrairieAir]

You said (I think it was you):

"Informally, I've come to view the label "Young Adult" or the Newberry award appearing on a book as a warning that it will be either full of sex and curse words, or have disturbing themes."

 

I'm curious about what you've said regarding the Newberry Award books here. I'm going to have to look at a list of Newberry Award books now and see what I can remember of them. Are you exaggerating here or do you really find this to be pretty common among them? Perhaps I'm not as disturbed by sex, curse words, and disturbing themes though:D People are often shocked at the movies we watch as a family, so it's possible. If only you knew what we went to see last night. I'm still giggling over one particular line.:lol:

[Peek a Boo]

Gosh, this is starting to feel like an inquisition. :D In the interest of full disclosure, I saw a twitter feed about it, remembered the question, and went a-Googling.

 

 

yeah, kind of.... ;)

 

but i agree that full disclosure is usually the best course of action --for everyone concerned [including Palin, lol!].

 

see ya!

[Sahamamama]

I'm also against banning books and doubt the validity of this claim based on the source of the list. Where is the list of "did you know this about Biden?" I find the singling out of Palin disgusting and do not see a lot of matters discussed here relevant to the job she is applying for.

 

:iagree:

[dawn of ns]

. . . a certain weightiness to one's reasons. The precedent is that when you have limited space, you choose wisely. You don't choose lightly. You've got the collective weight of history informing your choices.

 

If we're talking about stocking a library, I'd agree. Removing books because of rather subjective judgements about their value isn't the same thing.

 

Still, I do wonder now how libraries make their judgements about what to cull. I suspect it based simply on what the community uses the least? That seems most fair to me and it doesn't limit choices to what one section of the community would deem worthy (after all, althought the collective weight of history might frown on a Daniel Steele novel that is what a large proportion of patrons might borrow).

[dawn of ns]

In the end, I decided that I feel it is the individual's (and in the case of a young child, the parent's) responsibility to judge which books are suitable for themselves and not for an entire community. I had to ask myself the questions first in order to come to that conclusion, though. I can't fault Sarah Palin for asking those same questions. If it turns out this went farther than what I am understanding, then I'd be more uncomfortable with her for that reason.

 

It sounds like you've approached the issue thoughtfully.

 

Your response reminds me of a letter I read that a librarian wrote to a patron who complained about a similar book here. Let me make it clear that your response is very different from the complaints of the patron! I just thought that it might interest you since it deals with similar issues.

[Holly IN]

If this is really authetic... Well it is her right!!

 

Remember it is just a ban. There is a big difference in making it illegal vs. banning. Very different!!

 

I didn't read any of the postings (I do not have time!!) so if I repeated anything I apologize.

 

Alot what is on the list is NOT allowed in my home. It is not what Christians should read. Again this is my opinion. If this list is authentic and Palin did actually say it (I have yet to see any proof of this or believe she actually wanted some of these books banned btw) then that is her opinion.

 

Again banning something and making it illegal are two very different things.

 

Remember rumors are flying high right now on Palin. I think it is best that we really take everything with a grain of salt until we really get a good confirm on whatever the rumor is (which alot of them were false).

 

I know most on here do not believe in banning. I look at banning something different. It is no different than somebody banning Ford because of their stance on homesexuality or Starbucks because of their support for the gay pride parade or Lowe's because they refuse to call the trees Christmas Tree. Each of us have something we ban (maybe not all of us). It is a matter of preference for yourself and your family.

 

What if this list is a ban in regards to her own family?

 

Remember guys this is my opinion on this matter. :D

 

On the flip side of this....I have found that my own local library have removed certain books because of their staunch stance on God's providence in this country. I can't find any book in the library that I need for my history study. I really do believe they do their own personal banning. Couple of times I did check a book out and a year later tried to check it out again...it wasn't avail. anymore and I asked why...they said it wasn't appropriate anymore. I said what was so inappropriate about it. Their response was it was too Christian in nature. :ohmy: So I do see this on this side of the coin alot!!

 

Trying to show both sides of this issue if this list is really authentic.

Holly

[laylamcb]

I'm not mean, or even particularly political, but I often lack good judgement, and I'm a sucker for a good debate. :::sigh::: Really. Honestly. I'll scan in my voting registration if you want and you can see that it's Republican. :001_smile:

 

Um, I'm gonna have to disagree with you bigtime here, Rose. This is the very first instance I've seen of ANY lack of good judgment on your part. Carry on. :001_smile:

[PrairieAir]

Your response reminds me of a letter I read that a librarian wrote to a patron who complained about a similar book here. Let me make it clear that your response is very different from the complaints of the patron! I just thought that it might interest you since it deals with similar issues.

 

Thank you for posting this! What an excellent letter! It's certainly worth reading the entire letter, but here are two sections which stood out to me.

 

"Ultimately, such labels make up a governmental determination of the moral value of the story. It seems to me – as a father who has done a lot of reading to his kids over the years – that that kind of decision is up to the parents, not the library. Because here's the truth of the matter: not every parent has the same value system."

 

(Emphasis above is mine. Isn't this something which has been said multiple times in other contexts?)

 

"Your third point, about the founders' vision of America, is something that has been a matter of keen interest to me most of my adult life. In fact, I even wrote a book about it, where I went back and read the founders' early writings about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What a fascinating time to be alive! What astonishing minds! Here's what I learned: our whole system of government was based on the idea that the purpose of the state was to preserve individual liberties, not to dictate them. The founders uniformly despised many practices in England that compromised matters of individual conscience by restricting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech – the right to talk, write, publish, discuss – was so important to the founders that it was the first amendment to the Constitution – and without it, the Constitution never would have been ratified.

 

How then, can we claim that the founders would support the restriction of access to a book that really is just about an idea, to be accepted or rejected as you choose? What harm has this book done to anyone? Your seven year old told you, “Boys are not supposed to marry.†In other words, you have taught her your values, and those values have taken hold. That's what parents are supposed to do, and clearly, exposure to this book, or several, doesn't just overthrow that parental influence. It does, of course, provide evidence that not everybody agrees with each other; but that's true, isn't it?"

 

The point about what constitutes children's literature and the purpose of difficult subject matter in books for children is a good one. I've heard a lot about the book he mentions, “The Uses of Enchantment: the Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales†by psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, and I agree with much of it. This was something I really struggled with when my children were young and I am ashamed to say that in that zealous young mother stage I went so far as to glue together pages of the Sesame Street Library books someone gave us which contained references to witches, spells, and fairy tale violence. I guess that's another good illustration of how individuals must work through these little moral and intellectual dilemmas to settle on precisely what their values are and how they will live those values. That overprotective instinct is especially strong with new parents, too. Thank goodness most of us learn to lighten up over time or we'd see teenagers walking the streets in bubble wrap:D Still, it's a little embarrassing to look back at that, much more so than my hysterics over the first time my first child fell. I don't know why that is since as their mother I'm charged with protecting their minds and hearts as well as their bodies, but there it is.

[Melinda in VT]

If this is really authetic... Well it is her right!!

 

Remember it is just a ban. There is a big difference in making it illegal vs. banning. Very different!!

 

I didn't read any of the postings (I do not have time!!) so if I repeated anything I apologize.

 

Alot what is on the list is NOT allowed in my home. It is not what Christians should read. Again this is my opinion. If this list is authentic and Palin did actually say it (I have yet to see any proof of this or believe she actually wanted some of these books banned btw) then that is her opinion.

 

Again banning something and making it illegal are two very different things.

 

Remember rumors are flying high right now on Palin. I think it is best that we really take everything with a grain of salt until we really get a good confirm on whatever the rumor is (which alot of them were false).

 

I know most on here do not believe in banning. I look at banning something different. It is no different than somebody banning Ford because of their stance on homesexuality or Starbucks because of their support for the gay pride parade or Lowe's because they refuse to call the trees Christmas Tree. Each of us have something we ban (maybe not all of us). It is a matter of preference for yourself and your family.

 

What if this list is a ban in regards to her own family?

 

Remember guys this is my opinion on this matter. :D

 

On the flip side of this....I have found that my own local library have removed certain books because of their staunch stance on God's providence in this country. I can't find any book in the library that I need for my history study. I really do believe they do their own personal banning. Couple of times I did check a book out and a year later tried to check it out again...it wasn't avail. anymore and I asked why...they said it wasn't appropriate anymore. I said what was so inappropriate about it. Their response was it was too Christian in nature. :ohmy: So I do see this on this side of the coin alot!!

 

Trying to show both sides of this issue if this list is really authentic.

Holly

 

I'm confused about what you are saying.

 

First, let me say that I do not believe the above list is connected to Palin, but that I do believe she did in fact *inquire* about whether it was possible to ban books. (I haven't seen much evidence it went beyond an initial inquiry.)

 

Now, here's my confusion on your post.

 

Are you saying that you feel a mayor has the right to ban books in the town library?

 

Or are you saying that a parent has the right to ban books in his or her home?

 

If the first, I disagree vehemently. If the second, I agree. (Although I am not sure it is a good parenting practice, and it's not one we use in our family.)

[nmoira]

 

Still, I do wonder now how libraries make their judgements about what to cull. I suspect it based simply on what the community uses the least? That seems most fair to me and it doesn't limit choices to what one section of the community would deem worthy (after all, althought the collective weight of history might frown on a Daniel Steele novel that is what a large proportion of patrons might borrow).

Circulation certainly plays a large part in the choice of what to cull. We have a great library system, but there are many classic children's books which have only one or two copies in our system. Admittedly these tend to be somewhat more obscure titles like Tanglewood Tales, but it's sitll regrettable. Shelf space is a premium, so I do my part by keeping 100 or so library books on my own shelves at any given time. :) Popular books are also culled when the initial excitement wears off. Our local library store is a great place to pick up items such as the Lemony Snicket books. There are a some titles that are regularly stolen such as books about the occult, books with homosexual themes, texts mentioning abortion, and the Bible.

[Mrs Mungo]

If you follow the link on that blog to librarian.net you'll see this:

note: there’s some buzz being generated that says that this post contains a comment that lists the books that Palin supposedly wanted banned. The list is here, but there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.

 

In other words, someone posted it in the comments on that blog. There is no verification for this unless and until the librarian in question speaks up.

 

In fact, this list seems to come directly from this anti-book banning website: http://www.adlerbooks.com/banned.html

 

This list is a hoax.

 

If this is really authetic... Well it is her right!!

 

Remember it is just a ban. There is a big difference in making it illegal vs. banning. Very different!!

 

No, as mayor she certainly does not have "the right" to demand certain books be removed from the library. The fact that she would even enquire about it and remove the local librarian due to "lack of loyalty" is disturbing to me in the extreme. As far as the claim that it's politics as usual with a change in administration, I've NEVER seen a librarian removed with a change in mayor and I've lived a lot of places.

 

eta: Michelle Malkin's blog is no better place to find truth. Can we stop posting "facts" from blogs, altogether? *Nowhere* is this discussed on Obama's site. Incorrect facts about Obama from a blog are no better than incorrect facts about Palin from a blog.

 

eata: Doing a search on Obama's site I only come up with 2 instances where book banning is mentioned. Both are blogs of his supporters. One *only* links this news story (copied onto a political blog but it is the same story that ran in the AP): http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/51821.html. The other mention is only a comment in another blog of one of his supporters and even that doesn't give a list, only a mention to the story that ran in the AP.

[clane]

This list has zero to do with Palin. Don't even get me started on how the list compiler alphabetized titles beginning with "The".

 

As far as I have been able to research, this was started after a disgruntled ex-librarian was terminated during a "cleaning house" session. I love it when these lists come up though--reminds me of a few things I need to read! :D

 

I do not believe in banning *any* books. Like tv/web/movies/cds, etc; parents need to take the responsibility to see what their children are reading and discuss with them why things written may are offensive, immoral and so on.

[Mom to Aly]

I found this list laughable! The number of "classics" is amazing; the fact that it includes Arthur Miller disgusts me (I adore him), and that it didn't include Herman Melville, just for quality disgusts me further--if you are going to ban books, don't make kids read Moby Dick or Billy Budd, for their own sakes! ;)

 

And I noticed it only included the first four Harry Potter's, which makes me think the author made this list before the 5th movie came out, and was too lazy read the books, and only saw the films :).

 

Of course, banning books is ridiculous. I doubt this is from Palin, although I would love it to be, as I really don't like her, so far. But, until it is proven to be, this is America, and I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. Why did we have to be brought up so fair-minded? ;)

[Mama Lynx]

Thanks, PariSarah. I am overwhelmed! I feel like I should stay here and get all intellectual to prove I wanted to, but it's 11 am and I've hardly said three words to my kids. I'll be back.

 

LOL. I believe you. Honest. Even though I did react knee-jerkily at first. I'm just ... a little bit on edge at the number of allegations flying around without being fact-checked first, and I'm prone to leap on that before I realize that the poster actually has another intent.

 

:D

[Jumping In Puddles]

I don't give any Palin Book Banning scandal much thought because there is so much that I don't agree with her on that is not "rumored" that this is not going to sway me on this issue. I doubt I'm alone on this - those that will vote for her are not concerned enough to not vote and those that wouldn't vote don't need another reason. LINK

 

By Rindi White | Anchorage Daily News

 

WASILLA -- Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

 

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go.

 

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.

 

It all happened 12 years ago and the controversy long ago disappeared into musty files. Until this week. Under intense national scrutiny, the issue has returned to dog her. It has been mentioned in news stories in Time Magazine and The New York Times and is spreading like a virus through the blogosphere.

 

The stories are all suggestive, but facts are hard to come by. Did Palin actually ban books at the Wasilla Public Library?

 

In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.

 

Emmons told the Frontiersman she flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship. Emmons, now Mary Ellen Baker, is on vacation from her current job in Fairbanks and did not return e-mail or telephone messages left for her Wednesday.

 

When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there.

 

Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name.

 

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said.

 

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'"

 

Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said.

 

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

 

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.

 

Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons.

 

Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

 

Palin told the Anchorage Daily News then that the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.

 

Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term.

 

Palin might have become a household name in the last week, but Kilkenny, who is not a Palin fan, is on her own small path to Internet fame. She sent out an e-mail earlier this week to friends and family answering, from her perspective, the question Outsiders are asking any Alaskan they know: "Who is this Sarah Palin?"

 

Kilkenny's e-mail got bounced through cyberspace and ended up on news blogs. Now the small-town mom and housewife is scheduling interviews with national news media and got her name on the front page of The New York Times, even if it was misspelled.

[Mamagistra]

Shelf space is a premium, so I do my part by keeping 100 or so library books on my own shelves at any given time. :)

 

LOL Me, too.

 

Plus I've always heard that higher circulation would help our local branch by increasing funding...though that seems unlikely this year: my county cut the book-buying budget by nearly 70%. :glare:

 

Um, I'm gonna have to disagree with you bigtime here, Rose.

 

Yep. (((Rose)))...I read all your posts, no matter the title. Never have I found you to be the least bit inflammatory or provocative.

 

And FTR, I don't think Michael Palin has anything to say about this booklist. :lol:

:leaving:

[nmoira]

LOL Me, too.

 

Plus I've always heard that higher circulation would help our local branch by increasing funding...though that seems unlikely this year: my county cut the book-buying budget by nearly 70%. :glare:

Wow. I also do my part by incurring about $50 in fines during the course of the year. :)

 

I'm very lucky to be living in Portland. Library budgets are tight of course, but it's not nearly so bad as in much of the rest of the US. We have the highest per capita circulation of any system in the US. :D

[lovemyboys]

I am against banning any books, let me get that out front.

I do think some books should come with a warning for clueless parents who never screen what their children are reading. I do not want my 7yr.old ds reading things with sexual content, for example, which many "middle school" age books have, and that is the level he is reading at.

I looked at this list and thought there is no way this can be real. "My Friend Flicka"? Shakespeare? A Wrinkle in Time?

The guy passing this list around is a Democrat running for state rep in New Hampshire. He gives some other guy the credit for the list and I haven't googled him yet.

I would be very suspect of this being a real list at all.

 

I had the same thought when I saw how long and varied the list is. Please.

There are a lot of people who are going to be bringing up tidbits from the candidates' past.

 

OP admits that provenance hasn't been checked. Then why not start this topic as one of banned books as opposed to "these are the books she tried to have banned?"

 

It seems to me that each of the candidates have things that could be exploited and sensationalized. I've heard it said that she merely inquired about banning books, could she have been speaking for a constituent? Could she be asking that gradeschoolers not be exposed to more adult themes? Without any more info than a long list of classic and not-so-classic books, it's hard to tell whose agenda we're dealing with.

 

Now for a straight-forward discussion on the attempt to ban books, why not list the top 10 usual suspects, or something?

[lovemyboys]

I don't think "The email that I received with a list of books Sarah Palin may or may not have tried to get banned" would have fit.

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

What do you think of banning books?

 

or

 

A list of banned books

 

would have fit just fine and not attacked a candidate without OP checking the sources first. Fortunately, this board has lots of fast fact-checkers and link-followers in our membership! ;)

[asta]

There are a some titles that are regularly stolen such as books about the occult, books with homosexual themes, texts mentioning abortion, and the Bible.

 

I know I'm going off topic a bit here, but this very thing really ticks me off. It's a LIBRARY. It's paid for with TAX dollars. EVERYONE's tax dollars. The tax dollars of Wiccans, Pagans, homosexuals, people who believe in abortion, and people who believe in the bible.

 

Every single place I've lived since 1992 has had a library where almost everything that didn't toe an evangelical Christian line mysteriously "disappeared" shortly after being put into circulation. Some were "lost", some were "checked out" (by one person) for 5 years and never returned, some actually said "checked in", but the librarians admitted they hadn't seen them in years (eg: stolen).

 

On the most basic level (not even getting into a theological argument), how is a kid supposed to do a compare and contrast between historical witchcraft (Salem Witch Trials) and modern wiccans (persecution within the Armed Forces) when ALL THE BOOKS ARE GONE because they're "objectionable"?

 

Don't ever forget - Hitler's FIRST move was banning/burning books. And he was democratically elected.

 

 

asta

 

(and no, I don't have a problem with Palin, as she hasn't legislated her personal belief system; most politicians come in and fire everyone to install their own team. My friend in Alaska tells me that things are so paternalistic and entrenched up there that you pretty much HAVE to if you want to get anything accomplished - and she doesn't like Palin. She also mentions that the librarian quit 2 months after Palin was sworn in.)

[Mrs Mungo]

I know I'm going off topic a bit here, but this very thing really ticks me off. It's a LIBRARY. It's paid for with TAX dollars. EVERYONE's tax dollars. The tax dollars of Wiccans, Pagans, homosexuals, people who believe in abortion, and people who believe in the bible.

 

Every single place I've lived since 1992 has had a library where almost everything that didn't toe an evangelical Christian line mysteriously "disappeared" shortly after being put into circulation. Some were "lost", some were "checked out" (by one person) for 5 years and never returned, some actually said "checked in", but the librarians admitted they hadn't seen them in years (eg: stolen).

 

I don't think they are always stolen by Evangelicals with an agenda. I think they are stolen as often by adolescents who don't want to admit checking them out.

 

(and no, I don't have a problem with Palin, as she hasn't legislated her personal belief system; most politicians come in and fire everyone to install their own team.

 

Even the librarian? That really seems insane and I've never seen it happen elsewhere. Granted, I've never lived in a town *that* tiny (unless you count a *tiny* military post) and if that's how things are done, I guess I need to make sure I never do.

[Peek a Boo]

LINK

 

 

except that if you google "Kilkenny" you'll find other articles describing her not as a neutral housewife, but as a registered Democrat.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?hp

 

http://blukor08.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-email-ann-kilkenny-palin-email.html

 

EVERYone has an agenda. Even housewives ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Even the librarian? That really seems insane and I've never seen it happen elsewhere. Granted, I've never lived in a town *that* tiny (unless you count a *tiny* military post) and if that's how things are done, I guess I need to make sure I never do.

 

only if the librarian publicly supported the previous administration in the campaign, which this librarian did. So yeah, be careful about whom you publicly endorse in a campaign if you hold an official position.

[Mrs Mungo]

There is a word for firing everyone who works for government who doesn't agree with the dominant party but it's not Democracy.

[Robin Hood]

I looked at this list and thought there is no way this can be real. "My Friend Flicka"? Shakespeare? A Wrinkle in Time?

The guy passing this list around is a Democrat running for state rep in New Hampshire. He gives some other guy the credit for the list and I haven't googled him yet.

I would be very suspect of this being a real list at all.

 

:iagree:

[asta]

There is a word for firing everyone who works for government who doesn't agree with the dominant party but it's not Democracy.

 

That's true.

 

We're a republic, not a democracy.

 

 

asta

[Mrs Mungo]

That's true.

 

We're a republic, not a democracy.

 

 

asta

 

I wasn't implying it was our form of government. I was using it as shorthand for political pluralism.

[Jumping In Puddles]

except that if you google "Kilkenny" you'll find other articles describing her not as a neutral housewife, but as a registered Democrat.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?hp

 

http://blukor08.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-email-ann-kilkenny-palin-email.html

 

EVERYone has an agenda. Even housewives ;)

 

She is a (now famous) critic of Palin and a registered democrat and resident of Wasilla but that to me is different than some party operative who's job is to discredit the opponent. Just because she disagrees with Palin doesn't make her opinions any less valid. She is giving one point of view and there are certainly others who are giving a different point of view.

[Storm Bay]

Sorry, I don't buy this list without authentication because I'd be suprised if this list is accurate. Not that I'm a Palin fan, per se, but some of those titles just don't sound right, even for people that don't like those kinds of books. Some of them I hate, but I'm not one for banning books, although I think that not all of them are appropriate for a Children's Room.

[Peek a Boo]

I wasn't implying it was our form of government. I was using it as shorthand for political pluralism.

i agree. But unfortunately it happens a LOT in both parties.

 

big cities, small towns.

state and federal levels.

Republican and Democrat.

and probably Libertarian ;)

 

and Palin didn't fire the librarian, either. She ended up quitting.

 

Obama will dismiss Bush's cabinet members and appoint his own.

political plurality? or Constitutional [executive] authority?

 

What other appointed positions will the new President shake up?

[Peek a Boo]

She is a (now famous) critic of Palin and a registered democrat and resident of Wasilla but that to me is different than some party operative who's job is to discredit the opponent. Just because she disagrees with Palin doesn't make her opinions any less valid. She is giving one point of view and there are certainly others who are giving a different point of view.

 

it doesn't take a party operative to attempt to discredit someone.

 

I'm sure her opinions ARE valid. They are also biased.

 

I'm just pointing out the bias since the article linked did not.