pageok
pageok
pageok
Apparently Fraudulent Palin Bookbanning List.

In 1996, when Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she asked her town librarian how she would respond to censoring books. According to the librarian at the time, three inquiries had been made by December 1996. Palin also asked for resignation letters from some department heads and high appointments that she inherited from her predecessor (including the librarian), several of which had publicly supported her opponent in the election.

That Palin would ask about censorship suggests, but doesn't prove, that she was very probably actually contemplating asking the library to censor or remove books.

As if the truth weren't bad enough, Palin's opponents are now distributing a long, apparently phony list of books that Palin tried to ban.

On the list are the first four Harry Potter books, all published first from mid-1997 through 2000 [in the UK, and from 1998 through 2000 in the US, AFTER the censorship policy inquiries were made].

UPDATE: I see that Michelle Malkin spotted the fake list before I did, and she notes that it's being spread on the Obama Campaign site. The post is by Mark Brickman, who is described as "a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama."

2d UPDATE: The list has now been determined to be a complete hoax. The list has nothing to do with Palin; it is one that has been circulating for years, with exactly the same books and in exactly the same order. It is a list of important or great books that have been banned from libraries somewhere at some time.

After being up for most of the day, the Obama campaign page spreading the phony list has now been deleted. The reason I listed the background of the official Obama website blogger was because, if I had not listed his position, it would have looked like it was probably coming from the Obama campaign leadership, rather than just a low-level local Obama campaign worker who was nonetheless given a national Obama blog.

What lies will be made up next?

therut:
Did she command "Unintended Consequences" be read in all schools. If so I will vote twice for her.
9.6.2008 3:31pm
Noops (mail):
Jim, I read this blog for it's intellectual honesty from all of its writers. I guess I'm getting a little tired of the obviously partisan "Lindgren-Palin Coolaid Drinking Contest." Can we get the other writers to actually start posting the usual substantive articles now?
9.6.2008 3:36pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
My county's district library system has thirteen copies of "Confessions of An Economic Hit Man". The head librarian said it was because of demand. Back in the day, they had only six of "Men are From Mars". I'll have to check on how many of any one Potter book they have.
Clear across the state, a dozen of "confessions".
Checked on others. Mostly ten and up.
Not buying the demand excuse.
Librarians ban books all the time by simply not acquiring them. Our local branch had "The Nation" but not "National Review" subscriptions.
9.6.2008 3:39pm
one of many:
I'm amazed, it's been whole minutes since this has been noted and the Obama campaign site link is still good. This stuff usually get tossed down the memory hole faster, must be the weekend.
9.6.2008 3:41pm
Cornellian (mail):
Palin also asked for resignation letters from some department heads and high appointments that she inherited from her predecessor (including the librarian), several of which had publicly supported her opponent in the election.

Doesn't exactly do her credit, does it? Obviously you're going to replace the high political appointments from the previous governor, but a librarian?
9.6.2008 3:44pm
Cornellian (mail):
I suppose we could just ask Governor Palin directly, were it not for the fact that she already seems to have been packed away to an undisclosed location. Not a single press conference since the convention? Could it be she's not ready for prime time?
9.6.2008 3:46pm
fullerene:
I think the truth is hard to explain in five words. Why else would people pump a false story that is not as bad as the true one? Truth is stranger than fiction and often harder to explain.
9.6.2008 3:47pm
Cornellian (mail):
Hey Dave Kopel, I'm fine with you plugging your newspaper column in this blog (in the post above this one), but why no comments and no link?
9.6.2008 3:47pm
fullerene:

I suppose we could just ask Governor Palin directly, were it not for the fact that she already seems to have been packed away to an undisclosed location. Not a single press conference since the convention? Could it be she's not ready for prime time?



Nah, that isn't it at all. Being the governor of Alaska is quite demanding. You've got the Alaska National Guard to equip, the Russians to deal with, all that land to watch over, snow shovels full of corrupt politicians to expose, and the Canadian border to watch. The real question is not whether Palin is qualified to be Vice President. No, what we should be asking ourselves is whether the United States can take the hit from moving such an experienced person away from such an important job, Governor of Alaska, to a much less significant one, Vice President.
9.6.2008 3:53pm
James Lindgren (mail):
noops:

Isn't it an important function of new media to point out the inconvenient truth (Palin contemplated book banning) along with exposing the apparent outright lies (Palin's supposed list of books she tried to ban)?

Let's face it. Neither McCain nor Biden are very interesting. They have been public figures for ages. People are rightly fascinated by the two new stars on the stage.
9.6.2008 4:07pm
JB:
Let's see how soon the Obama campaign takes this one down, and what happens to its legs in the blogosphere. Here's hoping the Democrats are better at shutting up about bullshit accusations than the Republicans were with the "secret Muslim" smear.
9.6.2008 4:08pm
bikeguy (mail):
I just went to my local public library and looked for this month's Playboy in the periodical section. They said they don't have it.

Then I checked for Penthouse. No go.

Palin casts a long shadow, evidently.
9.6.2008 4:08pm
The General:
If elected, Obama intends on working with his Democratic allies in Congress to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" which would severely limit or eliminate the First Amendment rights of broadcasters to voice their opinions (especially the ones critical of liberals) on the radio and television and possibly the internet.

Palin once, as mayor, asked if the librarian if was OK to remove some books from the library as part of a policy discussion. The librarian said no. Palin took no action to remove any books.

Seriously, which is worse?
9.6.2008 4:12pm
WOS (mail):
As far as Palin not appearing before the media goes, I too would like to see her answer some questions..

But I think it may actually be to McCain/Palin ticket's benefit to keep her from the media.

Every day we see more and more attempts to find scandals (just go read Digg.com, they'll all be on the front page.) A story about Palin allegedly making a racist remark about Obama, as overheard by a waitress, was a top story over there.

I imagine there's a large group of people out there who see the increasing speculation into her life and conclude there's a lot of outright hatred for Palin. They may think, "Why should she subject herself to this kind of nonsense from the press and media?"
The more Palin's access is limited, the more desperate people will be to attack her, which in turn helps solidify that impression.
9.6.2008 4:14pm
donaldk2 (mail):
Small stuff. It isn't going to change anyone's vote.
9.6.2008 4:19pm
Angus:
My goodness, something false on the internet! Just today I received an email purporting to be a New York Times Maureen Dowd column about how Obama had gotten $200 million from just a handful of credit cards from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I look forward to Lindgren exposing every fake blog comment and spoof email aimed at Obama.
9.6.2008 4:20pm
Guessed:
1. Why is the subject of your post the apparent fraud of the book list, rather than the "bad enough" truth "that she was very probably actually contemplating asking the library to censor or remove books"?

2. As to its presence on an Obama campaign site, wouldn't it be fairer to note also that the early response there was quite negative, and objected to the posting on the ground that it was unverified and probably false? Certainly someone reading the site wouldn't get the impression that the posting was accepted as true or responsible by Obama supporters.

One does get the sense that this is less out pointing out inconvenient truths and outright lies than about dwelling on the latter -- or rather, broadcasting them beyond their original audience, with the hope of attributing them in an exaggerated way to others. At least guard against that.
9.6.2008 4:23pm
ruraljuror:
Lindgren, in the update you note that an erroneous list is being spread on the "Obama campaign site." Since my.barackobama.com addresses are given out like Halloween candy, you're using an unreasonable standard--holding politicians accountable for anything that any of their supporters say.
9.6.2008 4:27pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):

"The post is by Mark Brickman, who is described as "a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama."

I guess to Malkin that makes him a senior Obama advisor.
9.6.2008 4:30pm
Jamesaust (mail):
The post is by Mark Brickman, who is described as "a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama."


And?

Is the only point of this sentence an attempt to tie Obama to this vicariously? Sort of like, back in the day, when your references to Saddam's possession of WMDs, made you into a (vicarious) liar?

AT BEST, this "suggests, but doesn't prove" Obama wrongfully attacking Palin.

Far more likely, people are trying to fill the void of the silence from the bunker in Alaska that the GOP has created with whatever they can glean. Such a process inevitability produces erroneous details that take on their own life. Here is seems self-evident that, like a group 'playing telephone,' the details have become blurred as one person has commented unto another until the final, erroneous story emerges. The cure is hardly limiting speech to repeating campaign propaganda but rather the campaign producing truthful, detailed, and accurate information.

Unless you have news-breaking information on the identity of the original "faker" I would suggest that mere refutation of error is sufficient without trying to add politically motivated "spin." Better yet, you could actually produce Gov. Palin to provide answers herself.

(BTW: did you know Obama was really a Muslim?)
9.6.2008 4:41pm
Anderson (mail):
I had raised the alleged list, and quickly noted its fake nature, in an earlier Palin thread.

Frankly, merely *asking* about banning books sounds to me about as innocuous as asking "which members of the city government are Jewish ... just for future use, y'understand."
9.6.2008 4:43pm
Order of the Coif:
Jim, I read this blog for it's intellectual honesty from all of its writers. I guess I'm getting a little tired of the obviously partisan "Lindgren-Palin Coolaid Drinking Contest." Can we get the other writers to actually start posting the usual substantive articles now?


Jim, If you don't like her vote for someone else.
9.6.2008 4:44pm
JK:
Right when I thought this site couldn't sink any lower, you start linking to Michelee Malkin as a reliable source of information.
9.6.2008 4:46pm
Mike @ Naughte Relevant (mail) (www):
bikeguysaid:

I just went to my local public library and looked for this month's Playboy in the periodical section. They said they don't have it.

Then I checked for Penthouse. No go.

Palin casts a long shadow, evidently.


Unless you live in Wasilla, AK, I don't see how that is relevant. Or maybe you were being sarcastic.
9.6.2008 4:46pm
EH (mail):
Jim: Aren't there some scurrilous comments on Little Green Footballs to be debunked as well? Shall we wait with baited breath for the analysis of a random Kos diary being representative of the entire Democratic party?

I know it's typical to glorify one's biases, but how about getting to the story behind the story here?
9.6.2008 4:53pm
one of many:
The post is by Mark Brickman, who is described as "a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama."


is the only point of this sentence an attempt to tie Obama to this vicariously? Sort of like, back in the day, when your references to Saddam's possession of WMDs, made you into a (vicarious) liar?


It was (before being memory holed) on Obama.com. If anything, the sentence you find offensive serves to clarify that the statement is not an official one from the campaign but from one of his supporters.
9.6.2008 4:57pm
paul lukasiak (mail):
as of 3:49, the Obama site link no longer works.

***********

As far as Palin not appearing before the media goes, I too would like to see her answer some questions..

But I think it may actually be to McCain/Palin ticket's benefit to keep her from the media.... The more Palin's access is limited, the more desperate people will be to attack her, which in turn helps solidify that impression.


Perhaps more importantly, by limiting access to Palin while she is undergoing attacks, a massive audience is guaranteed for when she does finally "sit down" with the media in a way that allows her to speak directly to the American people -- rather than having her explanations/answers filtered by the media.

This strategy worked wonders last week -- the TV ratings for Palin's speech would have been far smaller had Palin been constantly accessible the prior week (and Palin's success on Wednesday led to greater interest in McCain's speech on Thursday; thanks to Palin, voters wanted to give McCain 'another look'. )
9.6.2008 5:01pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
So Sarah Palin wanted to ban books from the library, then fired the librarian for not being fully supporting Palin with all her heart.

But some blogger who got a free my.obama blog site posted a fake banned book list and this is the objectionable part of the story.
9.6.2008 5:01pm
cirby (mail):
So Sarah Palin wanted to ban books from the library, then fired the librarian for not being fully supporting Palin with all her heart.

Actually, no, as people pointed out above.
9.6.2008 5:16pm
Bill_Texas (mail):
Sarah Palin likes to be called "Sarah Barracuda."

So, I got curious as to Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of "barracuda."

Here is their second definition, with a link to it below. Pass this on to everybody you know.

bar·ra·cu·da
Pronunciation:
\ˌber-ə-ˈkü-də, ˌba-rə-\

2 : one that uses aggressive, selfish, and sometimes unethical methods to obtain a goal especially in business

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barracuda
9.6.2008 5:20pm
Pal2Pal (mail) (www):
She has 3 media interviews scheduled for today. This is another lie of the left.
9.6.2008 5:21pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Given what the media and dems in collusion will do to throw an election--see Rathergate--the next two months are going to be particularly interesting.
I'd guess the MSM will be watching the 'sphere for something not debunked fast enough to see what they'll run.
9.6.2008 5:21pm
fullerene:

She has 3 media interviews scheduled for today. This is another lie of the left.



Serious question: anyone know which media outlets will be performing these interviews? All it says in the schedule is "Media Interview." I would like to see the interviews and/or read about them.
9.6.2008 5:28pm
LM (mail):
James Lindgren:

Isn't it an important function of new media to point out the inconvenient truth (Palin contemplated book banning) along with exposing the apparent outright lies (Palin's supposed list of books she tried to ban)?

Of course and of course. But slow down with the amateurish internet rumors. Ace can only write so fast.
9.6.2008 5:42pm
one of many:
So Sarah Palin wanted to ban books from the library, then fired the librarian for not being fully supporting Palin with all her heart.

But some blogger who got a free my.obama blog site posted a fake banned book list and this is the objectionable part of the story.

Well, apparently to Jim's critics it is. Jim provides a reasonable summary of the facts as known, a link to fairly objective newspaper review of the issue and points out in one sentence (and the headline) before the update that there is an incorrect rumour which pretends it is worse. Jim updates to note that someone else has beaten him to the punch and that the rumour (lie) was on the offical campaign website, clarifying that it was by a blogger on the site and not an official statement of the campaign.
let the riot begin.
Aside from my quick quip about the lateness of disappearing the blog (and I could have been nasty and mentioned how it was up for over 24 hours with multiple comments about how awful Palin was without anyone noticing how easily false the list was) a discussion of Pallin and censorship ensues. People who assume Jim is a partisan hack arrive and begin to attack the "Obama lies meme" (which is no where in evidence) with the "a Blogger is not the campaign" line, something everyone no doubt knows by now because it has happened so many times already (otherwise my quip about disappearing posts would not be funny).

Now a new attack, Jim Lingren is trying to divert attention from the real issue of Palin's censorship with lies (tm) confusing the Obama campaign with a blogger, because a bunch of his critics hijack one of his threads to argue about how it wrong to confuse Obama with Obama supporters. If it weren't so amusing I wouldn't support your hijacking of the thread, but seriously are you even reading the thread?
9.6.2008 5:43pm
Leo:
Well, I guess there's no reason to keep reading this site. I came for the interesting discussion of current legal issues, I stayed for the occasional witty posts on other topics, and I leave because this has obviously become a shill-fest for Sarah Palin, a can-you-top-this festival of obsequious heroine worship the likes of which hasn't been seen on the internet since... well, since George w. Bush was popular.
9.6.2008 5:51pm
Lily (mail):
Is the only evidence we have of the potential Book Banning the Librarian's memory of the comment by Palin? Granted, it would be hard to forget being asked to ban a book - but there is absolutely no evidence that Palin requested that any specific books be banned. Is it possible that this librarian either misunderstood the question / comment by Palin, or willfully chose to interpret a comment by Palin in the most negative terms possible? I say yes, especially when we learn of the adversarial nature of the relationship between the two.
9.6.2008 5:56pm
Guessed:
one of many,

Try not to heap undue scorn. Surely someone might disagree with your reading of the post's thrust -- the headline, as you note parenthetically, was about the purported list; it's not clear at all what significance someone's submission to the Obama site was, but it was duly noted, without adverting to the abreaction that was readily evident there. Now I guess the post is gone, and the dozens of angry rejections of the made-up list, and only this post here sticks around.

You tell me: what's point of the headline? Of noting that "it's being spread on the Obama Campaign site"? And was noting Brickman's qualifications added to make the supposed link to the campaign stronger or weaker? I'm glad you're so amused by at all, and so careful in your reading, as opposed to anyone else.
9.6.2008 5:58pm
d (www):
The reason this has legs is how the local Wasilla newspaper reported this in 1996. The Anchorage paper story needs follow-up.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

"In December 1996, [the librarian] 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.
ation from her current job in Fairbanks and did not return e-mail or telephone messages left for her Wednesday."

We'll need the librarian to return from vacation and comment on the story before putting this to rest completely.
9.6.2008 6:01pm
Clastrenster:
One clarification here should be made: Michelle Malkin deserves no credit for swift observations here. Days ago this issue was, ahem, vetted by librarians:



It's hard to miss how smart they are, on the whole. Also a reminder that their work deserves utter respect.
9.6.2008 6:04pm
Clastrenster:
oops
http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
9.6.2008 6:04pm
Clastrenster:
unlike some (see above).

http://www.librarian.net/stax/2366/sarah-palin-vp-nominee/
9.6.2008 6:05pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
Hey libs - keep up the "Palin's in a bunker" meme. It's really working wonders for you along with all your other smears.
9.6.2008 6:05pm
AKD:
Not in the story linked above or most others I've seen, but at least one background story noted that the attempt to remove the Librarian (who in a town this size is, I would assume, the exec.) was concurrent to a dispute over merging and streamlining the operations of the city library and city museum. It would not surprise me if both the Librarian and Museum Director would be highly resistant to this attempt to step on their respective turfs.
9.6.2008 6:08pm
Anon Y. Mous:
By asking the librarian whether she would be willing to remove an offensive book may have been Palin's way of attempting to determine whether the librarian would follow her directions. Palin already knew that the librarian was a supporter of her opponent and she may have felt she needed to find out whether the librarian was willing to accept Palin's authority.

As an incoming mayor, she would want to start figuring out what staffing changes she would need to make, and probably preferred to get it all done in the early days of her administration.
9.6.2008 6:20pm
Emily L... (mail):
It is absolutely SHOCKING that Sarah Palin would seek to remove a libertarian from their position. People were suggesting that Palin herself was the most libertarian of the four major party contenders for President and Vice-President, but with this revelat...

What?

Librarian??

Oh.

Never mind...
9.6.2008 6:21pm
Angus:

Palin already knew that the librarian was a supporter of her opponent and she may have felt she needed to find out whether the librarian was willing to accept Palin's authority.
Because, y'know, political loyalty is crucial in a political position like the public librarian.

Palin did indeed fire the librarian. Letters went out terminating her, the police chief, and the other city managers. It's just that Palin had to backtrack on the firing of the librarian due to public outcry.
9.6.2008 6:30pm
enjointhis:
Heaven help me, but I think Anon Y. Mous @ 5:20 might have the right call on the incident. And if you serve at the pleasure of the mayor... Still, I'm underwhelmed by the action and take comfort only that it occurred 12 years ago. Fortunately, people mature over time, n'cest pas?

And as noted above, the Obama link doesn't work. I'm hoping they removed the link because of its dubious origins, in which case I think they deserve some credit for walking the walk.
9.6.2008 7:00pm
James Lindgren (mail):
To Palin supporters: It's not just a librarian's memory. Once, Palin asked the librarian about censorship in a public meeting!

To Palin opponents: The reason I listed the background of the poster was precisely the opposite of the one attributed to me. Read it again. If I had not listed his position, it would have looked like it was probably coming from the Obama campaign leadership, rather than a low-level local Obama campaign worker who was nonetheless given a blog. Other bloggers have been thrown off the site; I think a (former?) Communist education blogger was deleted.

To everyone: Has anyone nailed down the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine? Is Obama really supporting this? I haven't seen any evidence.
9.6.2008 7:10pm
theobromophile (www):
Okay, the crazy libertarian in me is coming out.

Isn't this only a problem because we have state-run libraries? While it's obviously good for children (and adults) to have ample access to books, it gives the state power that it would not otherwise have. (One can assume that, in the absence of public libraries, private libraries - either for profit or charitable - would spring up. The absence of publicly-funded DVD resulted in Blockbuster, Netflix, Cable on Demand, etc.)

The logical result is that you either have pseudo-censorship (not stocking the book in the library is not the same as forbidding people from possessing and reading it), or state-sponsored smut (Playboy, Penthouse).

I'm not sure I buy the idea that the lack of government-sponsored access is censorship. The problem is not with the substantive decisions made by state officials, but with the fact that they are making those decisions at all.
9.6.2008 7:19pm
Angus:

Isn't this only a problem because we have state-run libraries?
Maybe, maybe not. Nonprofit private libraries are even more susceptible to censorship pressures from directors and donors. For profit libraries would defeat what I think was one of the main points behind public libraries -- to provide avenues of information to people who could otherwise not afford it.

In a sense, we already have private libraries: bookstores.
9.6.2008 7:25pm
Waldo (mail):
FWIW, while I don't like that Palin would propose censoring the library, it's not that big an issue. I do, however, like that Palin, as governor, vetoed the bill that would have eliminated health benefits for gay and lesbian state employees because her attorney general advised that it was unconstitutional. I doubt that Palin is a closet gay-rights supporter so her most likely motivation is keeping the law within the bounds of the constitution, or, if you're a cynic, saving the state the inevitable ligigation costs. Either way, it's more in line with how earlier Presidents saw their role, and a stark contrast to our current "I think the BCRA is unconstitutional but I'll sign it anyway" President.
9.6.2008 7:47pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Some years ago, when I was leaner, but no less mean, I rescued an assistant librarian from what used to be known as a "fate worse than death". I may want to rethink my position.
9.6.2008 7:56pm
Lily (mail):

To Palin supporters: It's not just a librarian's memory. Once, Palin asked the librarian about censorship in a public meeting!

Do you have the minutes from that meeting? I would like to see the question asked, and the context. Thank you.
9.6.2008 8:11pm
MnZ:
While I love libraries and respect the job that librarians do, Banned Book Week demonstrates that there is a tendency toward histrionics in the librarian community.
9.6.2008 8:23pm
andrejsv:
Arghh! I am beginning to have a burning anger towards journalism in the US. I want to know more about the laws vetoed by Palin in Alaska, her declarations, the positions she supports. I could care less about her cooky religious views as long as they don't impact the way she governs.
I have not seen the list by I bet I could be analyzed to determine what would a leftist poor excuse for a politician considers 'dangerous books'
9.6.2008 8:28pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Doesn't exactly do her credit, does it? Obviously you're going to replace the high political appointments from the previous governor, but a librarian?
The librarian was fired -- one presumes -- not because she was a "high political appointment," but because she had actively campaigned against Palin.
9.6.2008 8:30pm
Angus:

The librarian was fired -- one presumes -- not because she was a "high political appointment," but because she had actively campaigned against Palin.
So, it was just a simple act of political retaliation? That would be the comforting answer?
9.6.2008 8:48pm
SG:
So, it was just a simple act of political retaliation? That would be the comforting answer?

How many Bush appointees do you believe will keep their jobs in an Obama administration? Do you have any problem with that?

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's a longstanding tradition. One other issue that this (and Troopergate) points out is that she does have executive experience. She's had to manage people who had competing agendas. Whether or not she's been successful at it is your call to make, but there's a reason why these sort of issues aren't being raised with Obama and it isn't just because he's such a great guy.
9.6.2008 9:29pm
Drs.Willem K. Gelok (mail):
I do not understand where all the fuzz is about. Palin is as uninteresting as her common behaviour. And a commoner is just what America doesnt need at this very moment.
9.6.2008 10:09pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
The librarian was an active political opponent of a candidate. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it's unusual in my neck of the woods for town employees to involve themselves in public declarations about candidates unless something specific to their role is going down, e.g. firemen commenting on which selectmen were supportive of 24/7 EMT coverage or something. I've lived here 30 years and I have no idea who the librarian supports.

My wife is a librarian - they are a liberal and even radical group and do get histrionic about censorship as they define it, i.e. questioning a librarian's acquisition.

Palin was likely thinking about books that could or should be removed. Jumping to the conclusion that any such volumes were her personal censorship list is unwarranted. She might well have been aware of an outcry about certain books from people who thought her a sympathetic ear. Learning "what does it take to get a book removed?" is not unreasonable when asked on behalf of the people who are purchasing those books (Librarians get huffy about their Higher Calling, and there's an argument to be made for that, but the taxpayers can do any damn fool thing they want). Palin was perhaps hoping it would be easy, a wink's as good as a nod to the librarian and everything would simmer down.

I offer that not as a possible scenario, but as a likely one.
9.6.2008 10:10pm
Randy R. (mail):
It's really no big deal, all this fuss about censoring books. No doubt Palin was just doing God's will. Who is going to argue with that, afterall?

We need someone as VP who completely understands God's will for a change -- it would be a lot of welcome clarity to McCain's policies.

Just saying.
9.6.2008 10:24pm
Jnow:
You don't even have to be a lowly campaign worker to have a blog at the Obama site, you just have to sign up for it.

SG, a librarian is generally not considered a political appointment, now were most of the others she fired. Palin did have the right to fire them since they were at will employees so what she did was legal. If the President had the same right to fire librarians or other such employees I would hope they wouldn't fire those who were doing a good job. A librarian isn't there to carry out any political policy.
I would think the reason these sort of issues aren't being raised with Obama is because he hasn't been in charge of non-political employees since his community organizing days when he was a director of a program that had 13 employees by the time he left.

Assistant Village Idiot, you have to admit that the librarian in this case doesn't sound the least bit histrionic (and does your wife know you consider them a radical group and do get histrionic about censorship as they define it")
9.6.2008 11:23pm
dagny (www):
A "city librarian" is an administrator first and foremost.

Also for the librarian to have campaigned for or against Palin would be considered unethical by the ALA.
9.6.2008 11:32pm
Catsandbeer.com (mail) (www):
Three cheers for Michelle for debunking that bogus list

Here's the actual list: Sarah Palin Banned Books List.

Lots of interesting titles there ...
9.6.2008 11:57pm
PhanTom:

Some years ago, when I was leaner, but no less mean, I rescued an assistant librarian from what used to be known as a "fate worse than death". I may want to rethink my position.


Richard,

What the hell are you trying to say here? Do you think it's better that someone be raped than call to light a political candidate's views on censorship?

Remember that the librarian only called out the story that Palin wanted to know how to ban books. It was a random commenter on her blog who made the comment with the list of books. The blogger then updated the post to indicate that the list was bogus.

For this she should be raped?

--PtM
9.7.2008 12:28am
RAM (mail):
The only thing she is alleged to have said is "How would you respond to censoring books?" That's It? Sounds like an interview question to me. Seems there would need to be something more to any alleged attempt to "censor" material. What other questions did she ask? It is hardly unusual for a new executive to ask for the resignation of all the prior appointees (department heads)when they take over and then decide who to keep and who to replace. This can only seem strange to people not familiar with common (even if not standard) practice.
9.7.2008 12:29am
GatoRat:
In Wasalia, the librarian is appointed by the mayor and serves at the pleasure of the mayor. The mayor may fire the librarian for any reason whatsoever.

The question of censorship is inane; nobody really believes that a library has an unfettered right to purchase for the library any book, magazine or other published material that they want. Furthermore, nobody really believes there are no legitimate circumstances to pull a book from the shelves of a public library.

There is a legitimate question for a mayor or member of the city council as to what the procedure is to question and possibly remove offending material from general circulation at their public library.

Another legitimate question is what elected officials should do if a librarian isn't purchasing sufficient material that the townspeople are interested in. A public library has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.
9.7.2008 12:36am
Mark Poling (mail):
No (non-fraudulent) documentation, no documented change in public policy, single source with an axe to grind.

The bottom of the barrel is going to be absolutely spotless when this thing has played out.
9.7.2008 12:37am
peterike (mail):
Gosh, banning books at the library, because like, there's NO other way to get information or anything. No doubt the libraries are full of ardent would-be whistle blowers trying to blow the lid on corporate corruption by busily combing through the stacks like Karl Marx at the British Museum.

How much ya'll wanna bet that you can search far and wide in most local libraries for Conservative books and not find any? Passive aggressive book burning by Liberals. It happens all the time yet I don't hear anybody howling about it. It happens in book stores too, when popular Conservative books get put behind the counter while the mountains of Bush-hating books clogging the tables blocks them from sight. That's the way it is, in fascist Amerikkka.

And what is this ridiculous Victorian romance with libraries anyway? As Peter Griffin says on "Family Guy" a library is "just a place where homeless people come to shave and go BM."

That's about what most local libraries are good for. This mouth-foaming notion that somehow the great brutal hand of government censorship is clamping around people's throats because somebody maybe wants to pull a few sleazy books off the shelf is ludicrous.
9.7.2008 12:38am
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
Yes my wife is aware of my views and shares (some of) them. This librarian did not sound histrionic, no. But if the library in question participated in Banned Books Week, she is by definition histrionic even if she speaks in measured tones. If a book is challenged by any patron in any library across the country, it can make it to that year's "banned" books list, regardless of the outcome of the challenge. That's a rather broad definition of "banned," to my thinking.

Librarians are in general sensitive to not acquiring children's books whose only goal is propaganda, such as "Heather Has Two Mommies." They might, however acquire a YA fiction title in which a teenager has gay parents, if the book had other things to recommend it. Many challenges are solved by placement, moving them from children's to YA or YA to adult. As a group, librarians are more likely to acquire more controversial titles that lean left, purchasing conservative titles only when popularity (of book, topic, or author) demands it. They are of the opinion that most people are exposed to conservative ideas already, and need liberal titles to broaden their horizons.
9.7.2008 12:39am
Hoosier:
"Palin is as uninteresting as her common behaviour. And a commoner is just what America doesnt need at this very moment."

Frankly, I'm hoping for a nobleman too. But during our Revolution, we killed most of them on Bastille Day, which is called the Night of the Long Knives.
9.7.2008 12:42am
peterike (mail):
By the way, the fact that Palin was going to fire the librarian but then relented due to public clamour to keep her sorta strikes me as perfectly sensible representative government in action.

Keep trying to find a monster in Palin, it's not going to work.

Meanwhile, you just have to poke Obama and hundred skeletons fall out. But we wouldn't want to pry.
9.7.2008 12:42am
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
How incredibly SMUG and ALL-KNOWING it is to insist that a hypothetical question -- asked when a new executive is trying to probe the loyalty of hold-over appointees -- suggests ANYTHING about what the executive would actually do.

Prof. Lindgren, this is the least objective I've ever seen you.

You ought to re-think, starting from first premises.
9.7.2008 12:47am
Hoosier:
I long for the day when our city's library will ban Harry Potter from all branches. I hate that little p***k, and his %^#%@ owl.
9.7.2008 12:53am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
PhanTom.
First, congrats on knowing what "a fate worse than death" means. You must be older than dirt.
Think about the following concept...J O K E.
After my encounter with the cad (another old word), I got all kinds of help with my library needs. To the point that, although the folks in my branch don't turn over much, I always said, "My name is Aubrey and I understand I have a book in." Didn't want to seem to be taking anything, including my hero status, for granted.
Nevertheless, except for the lady whose husband writes for Townhall, they were all screaming liberals and I used to order conservative books just to annoy them. Interlibrary loans are a pain in the butt, I gather. So I'd order Buckley. Clancy.

Although, considering the number of times my helpful self has been told to take a hike by feminists, I may not be joking about them.
9.7.2008 12:56am
Hoosier:
"peterike:
Keep trying to find a monster in Palin, it's not going to work."

They'll keep trying. But the American public makes its general assessment of a politician pretty quickly. First impressions count. It's probably too late to make her into a negative factor for McCain. Unless something REAL comes out, or she proves incompetent as a runningmate, it's going to be hard to convince people to be afraid of her.
9.7.2008 12:56am
Silly:

To Palin supporters: It's not just a librarian's memory. Once, Palin asked the librarian about censorship in a public meeting!


What *specifically* did she say, and what was the context in which it was said? What has been provided so far isn't enough to know if she was making a point, or if she was asking to remove something she thought was offensive (or some other reason I'm not thinking of).


On the topic of library censorship, there's a good deal of it. Most of it is done by, at least in the large public library I worked in during school, "acquisition committees". This is a group of librarians who decide which books should be on the shelves. For instance, I always remember the micro-scandal when Limbaugh put out his first book. The committee decided to purchase 1 copy of the book. And it was put onto the "reserve stacks", which meant the book could only be read in the library, not checked out. And you couldn't get it yourself; you had to put in a request and wait for a staff member to go off and get it and give it to you.

This lasted about 2 weeks, until the public outcry was so great they had to buy a dozen or so more copies and put them into circulation. I don't mean this to suggest all librarians are liberals, but most of the ones I worked with certainly were. And they were happy to make up an excuse about how they couldn't buy a popular book that many people had put in early requests for (one way the library used to gauge if they needed to buy a lot of copies of an upcoming book) due to budget. Of course budget was never an issue when the next Sue Grafton novel came out (dozens of copies) :)

I realize I digressed a bit there, but my point was that it's a bit frustrating to hear a librarian complaining about someone above them talking about some form of censorship, when they make decisions themselves that determine if something is acquired or not, and if so how it's provided to the public. Their censorship is no better than anyone else's censorship.
9.7.2008 1:05am
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
IN the continuing effort to see if I really can make smoke pour from my server, I'm attempting to keep a full list of these rumors. The librarian one would be #40 currently; the "knowing God's will" one is #23.

Feel free to drop by and add more. Preferably bring links, as it's taking a lot of time to keep the list current.
9.7.2008 1:05am
R C Dean (mail):
Aren't we all missing the point here? Namely, that Sarah Palin apparently never actually asked for a single book to be banned?

Asking how the librarian would respond could have any number of explanations, some innocuous, many not. Not sure why we would assume the worst explanation, to tell you the truth.

Lets also keep in mind that the source of these stories (the librarian) has a motive to spread/exaggerate this story. First, of course, it puts her in the public eye. Second, she was opposed to Palin as mayor. Third, she was (apparently) opposed to the merger of the library and the museum.

Grain of salt, people.
9.7.2008 1:08am
rarango (mail):
For those seekers of truth who want Palin to give interviews, why should she? She will give them but is going to avoid the MSM--why in the world should she interact with them?--Could she say anything that would change your minds? I kinda doubt it, but maybe you are more objective than your posts suggest. She is going to give interviews to local papers and her allies. And its a smart media strategy. Its time to, as someone used to say, move on. And besides, this is an Obama-McCain race, not an Obama Palin race although you wouldnt know that from what I have seen so far.
9.7.2008 1:09am
Angus:

For instance, I always remember the micro-scandal when Limbaugh put out his first book. The committee decided to purchase 1 copy of the book.

If you've ever worked in a library, this actually makes sense. Libraries typically have very limited acquisitions budgets. If they buy 12 of a book, that means 11 fewer other books that they can purchase. Want to bet that the library had to dispose of 11 of those copies in six months when no one was interested in checking out and reading the book anymore? Political books have a very short shelf life, which is why buying multiple copies is usually bad policy.
9.7.2008 1:11am
Darrin Ziliak:
I don't know of something 'real' coming out, but unless there was a lot more to 'Troopergate' than we know, her and the McCain campaign's sudden stonewalling (including convincing formerly cooperative witnesses to shut up) and a Palin ally's call for Sen. Hollis French to be removed, the coverup just might do the job.

I guess this is why the McCain team dispatched a squad of lawyers to Alaska immediately after the announcement.

You would have figured that the Republicans would have learned from both Watergate and Monicagate that the coverup, if unsuccessful, is more damaging than the underlying scandal.

It looks as if the McCain team is banking on success.
9.7.2008 1:12am
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: Anyone
RE: The Obama Site Cited....

....in the UPDATE to the original article no longer has that list there.

It would be nice if someone could provide a screen shot of that now-disappeared item.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
9.7.2008 1:27am
Gullyborg (www):
I have no problem with publicly funded libraries that don't stock things like sex manuals. And it isn't a first amendment issue. You know, not with that whole community standards of decency thing.

So until someone can provide an ACTUAL list of things Palin allegedly wanted to remove from the library, and shows that the ACTUAL list contains things other than blatantly offensive material like hard core porn, etc., this is not an issue anyone should care about.
9.7.2008 1:33am
Mark Poling (mail):
Darrin, I'll keep saying it: if the Democrats go to bat for a guy who tasered his stepson, they can expect to lose 49 states. (It would be 50, but you just can't keep a dead voter down in Chicago...)
9.7.2008 1:34am
Topsecretk9 (mail):

That Palin would ask about censorship suggests, but doesn't prove, that she was very probably actually contemplating asking the library to censor or remove books.


I would presume the opposite, only because my Library had a elderly citizen appoint himself a citizen ombudsman liaison to our local library since so many of his friends at the library were complaining they would not order or supply popular conservative books.

Incidentally, he got results and now he supplies the main library with a list of books requested by the library patrons. He explained to me that these folks do a lot of work for the library and libraries should stock books their communities desire.
9.7.2008 1:34am
Silly:

If you've ever worked in a library, this actually makes sense. Libraries typically have very limited acquisitions budgets. If they buy 12 of a book, that means 11 fewer other books that they can purchase. Want to bet that the library had to dispose of 11 of those copies in six months when no one was interested in checking out and reading the book anymore? Political books have a very short shelf life, which is why buying multiple copies is usually bad policy.


What they did made no sense. There was a strong advance demand for the book, and they chose to buy 1 copy, and put it on the reserve stacks so it couldn't be circulated. Like I said, they never had any problem buying dozens of copies of Grafton novels, which were busy for a few months after purchase, and then most copies had to be sold off in the yearly book sale at a good loss ($22 hardback for $3) after taking up space on the shelves for several months. And of course, once they were publicly called out, suddenly they bought 10 or so more copies of the Limbaugh book, so the budget issue wasn't really the issue (at other times, when we actually didn't have the budget, no amt of pressure would cause us to be able to bring something in).
9.7.2008 1:39am
Topsecretk9 (mail):

What they did made no sense. There was a strong advance demand for the book, and they chose to buy 1 copy, and put it on the reserve stacks so it couldn't be circulated. Like I said, they never had any problem buying dozens of copies of Grafton novels, which were busy for a few months after purchase, and then most copies had to be sold off in the yearly book sale at a good loss ($22 hardback for $3) after taking up space on the shelves for several months. And of course, once they were publicly called out, suddenly they bought 10 or so more copies of the Limbaugh book, so the budget issue wasn't really the issue (at other times, when we actually didn't have the budget, no amt of pressure would cause us to be able to bring something in).



You are right. That's why this spry old coot appointed himself mayor of my library. See above.
9.7.2008 2:01am
Darrin Ziliak:
Darrin, I'll keep saying it: if the Democrats go to bat for a guy who tasered his stepson, they can expect to lose 49 states. (It would be 50, but you just can't keep a dead voter down in Chicago...)



It's not about going 'to bat' for Trooper Wooten.
It's about her firing the Public Safety Commissioner because he followed the rules and wouldn't back the Governor in a personal vendetta and fire Trooper Wooten.

But I'm sure we can look for the Republicans and the other usual suspect (Hannity, Rush, and others of that ilk) to spin it the way you are.

In other words, using lies and misdirection to paint her as a sympathetic character.
9.7.2008 2:01am
Synova:
It doesn't matter, Darrin. Regular folks are going to see a system where abuses by troopers were met with inaction. Did the Public Safety Commissioner follow the rules? And what sort of excuse is it if he did? Is his position really without any actual decision making and leadership requirements? He just follows the rules helplessly?

Abuses by police shouldn't be tolerated. She's not going to look bad for this.
9.7.2008 2:20am
big dirigible (mail) (www):

That Palin would ask about censorship suggests, but doesn't prove, that she was very probably actually contemplating asking the library to censor or remove books.

Hardly. This is disapointingly simple-minded.

Let's show a little imagination before leaping to politically expedient conclusions, please. Here are a few for starters:

Palin may have been aware that there were persons or groups in town who were pressing for certain books to be eliminated from the library, and was interested in how the library might handle the pressure. This would not be surprising - most towns have people who think that the budget shouldn't be paying for crap (a laudable goal, the only difficulty being the definition of crap). Or perhaps the librarian only had the job because she was the previous mayor's mother-in-law, and Palin was wondering if she was competent to deal with minor crises. Maybe there were rumors that the librarian was spiraling into severe alcoholism, and Palin was wondering if she was even conscious. I'm sure a few Conspiracy readers, even the ones who haven't dealt with small city library staff, can come up with other possibilities.

The assumption that Palin was contemplating "book censorship" is simply unwarranted.

I've asked librarians about removing titles - I'll make a wild guess and speculate that by the time the newspapers reported my interest, they would have changed from "removing" to "censorship." The book was the infamous Arming America - after it was convincingly shown to be bogus throughout and the author had resigned his faculty position at Emory U.

Note that I was not asking them to remove the book. (I'm not the Mayor, but I am a taxpayer and a not-insignificant financial donor to the library.) I was wondering how the library would handle a book packed full of lies. My own mind was not settled on the matter - I could think of good arguments for throwing it out, and other good arguments for keeping it. It turns out that the library had the situation well under control - just how is not really germane here. So I was glad that I had asked. The librarians were very professional, and not at all outraged that I had asked a question about "censorship."
9.7.2008 2:20am
Deagle (mail):
Don't normally post here as most topics are lawerly (I know, not a word, but it serves its purpose)... but this one is precious. I just love how the pro-Obama enthusiasts come to the rescue. It seems that asking questions now constitutes an offense (to all your local lawyers of course). It is funny and actually fun to read.
9.7.2008 2:23am
Synova:
As for the librarian thing... I hate the notion of requiring "loyalty" of people (and was shocked and appalled at reporting of Pelosi's ascension to power and her Queen of Hearts behavior) but but but... there is an element of cooperation that I feel is reasonable when a person takes office... or gets a job as boss *anywhere*. It's unreasonable to expect someone to retain an employee who is going to actively work against them. That's the case for a mayor or any other employer.

If the librarian was actively campaigning for the other guy it's entirely reasonable to find out if she was prepared to work constructively with the new Mayor. The question itself, frankly, implies nothing at all about Palin's desire to remove books from the shelves. It's a question. That's all. And I think she found out how the librarian would react to questions from the Mayor's office.

And it's true, I'm not all that inclined to side with the librarian. The person who suggested it's a matter of State run and funded libraries is right, I think. Librarians do censor stuff all the time by deciding what not to buy and what not to put on the shelf. What is the moral difference between making choices at acquisition or afterward?

Why do librarians get this particular authority, to chose not to shelf books, while the rest of us are branded near criminal if *we* don't want to shelf a book?

Hmm?
9.7.2008 2:31am
Deagle (mail):
Actually Synova,

That is exactly what you should ask! I do not support banning anything except to maybe under 6 year olds but really, does the question and result have to be spelled out before you take any stand?

There are things that should not be accessible to those underage (Okay, that is negotiable - age that is). So why not actually take a stand?

By the way, it in no way has to due with funding of the library...
9.7.2008 2:36am
Darrin Ziliak:
It doesn't matter, Darrin. Regular folks are going to see a system where abuses by troopers were met with inaction.


You make it sound as if no action were taken against Wooten.
You'd be incorrect.

Also, let's not take every allegation made against him at face value simply because they were made in the context of a messy divorce battle, and I can tell you from experience that a *lot* of lies and distortions are bandied about from all parties involved.

Personally I find the idea of a state governor trying to have a state employee subject to civil service laws (AFAIK, the job of Trooper in the ASP is not a political patronage job) fired to be very disturbing.

Also, my original point still remains: If there is nothing to 'troopergate' other than the view that she was simply trying to protect her sister from this brute, why block the investigation?

Up until she was announced as VP candidate, the only thing I remember reading about it was how her and her staff were going to cooperate.

What brought about the sudden change of heart?
9.7.2008 2:44am
Kyla:

Another pathetic smear attempt on Sarah. She is the most popular politician in America. Obama is as interesting as moldy bread right now...Guess some people cant accept that.
9.7.2008 2:45am
Synova:
It doesn't matter, Darrin. Regular folks are going to see a system where abuses by troopers were met with inaction.


But I repeat myself.
9.7.2008 2:49am
Mark Poling (mail):
"Also, my original point still remains: If there is nothing to 'troopergate' other than the view that she was simply trying to protect her sister from this brute, why block the investigation? "

Links? Or is this another case of "throw enough BS, some will stick"?
9.7.2008 2:56am
Mark Poling (mail):
Come to think of it, if there is a block, it might be from the Obama crowd (one of whom might remember the good Willie Horton did for the Democrats way back....)
9.7.2008 2:59am
Mark Poling (mail):
Ah, and the "Up until she was announced as VP candidate, the only thing I remember reading about it was how her and her staff were going to cooperate."

Implies you were following very inside-baseball Alaskan politics way back when.

Which Alaskan papers do you read on a daily basis?
9.7.2008 3:04am
Deagle (mail):
Darrin,

As long as you keep reading and believing the tales of KOS, you are going to be left out in the cold.

There is nothing there...but by all means keep up the charade.

I really love it when leftists keep kicking the door and it has double locks. You will feel really foolish as the truth comes out... But, hey, don't let me ruin your enthusiasm for the chase... It only amplifies the Palin effect.
9.7.2008 3:16am
Darrin Ziliak:
Did I *say* I read Alaskan newspapers or lived in Alaska?
No, so you can take your innuendo and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

For the record, I've been paying attention to Palin since she was first mentioned as a possible VP candidate for McCain.

Before that, I read one or two stories on Yahoo! news about 'troopergate' and didn't have an opinion one way or another on it.

As for the McCain campaign obstructing the investigation, you can read about formerly cooperative witnesses changing their minds and the attempt to shut down the investigation by Palin's allies in the AK legislature.

Like I said in my original OP, if there's nothing more to it than her trying to fire an abusive ex brother-in-law, the cover up of the attempt will damage her more than the report saying that's what she tried to do will inflict.

The 'what's being covered up?' meme hurt Clinton in ways he didn't foresee when he lied in his deposition and was a huge mistake.

The McCain camp is risking the same mistake if the stonewalling becomes the issue rather than the incident itself.

Especially since McCain's new strategy is to sell the two of them as 'reformers'.
9.7.2008 3:25am
James Lindgren (mail):
Angus:

It's important to dispel defamatory lies when they arise (if you can).

I was one of the chief debunkers of the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape story. I believe that my debunking was pointed to by the Obama campaign on the official Obama site and it was certainly widely noted on pro-Obama sites.


And unlike the anti-Palin lie I debunk here, I actually drove out and did real reporting on that anti-Obama lie, which required a lot more time and effort than debunking this one.

Don't be so complacent about lying just b/c it agrees with your political orientation. The attack on Palin is unprecedented in my lifetime.
9.7.2008 3:30am
Darrin Ziliak:
As long as you keep reading and believing the tales of KOS, you are going to be left out in the cold.



Did I mention Kos even once?
No.

How the posting standards here have slipped.
9.7.2008 3:30am
Mark Poling (mail):
Hmmm.

Palin removes a state official who won't fire a State Trooper for tasering a child "just to show him what it felt like".

There's an abuse of power, I tell you.

Darrin, I understand the tactical point you're trying to push here about cover ups, but the problem is that all the facts in the case seem to be pretty much out in the open already. People made calls for Palin (whether she knew it or not) asking the guy's boss to can him. He didn't, and she ended up canning the guy who should have fired the jerk who tasered his stepson.

Wow. Drama. (Jerk with the badge is meanwhile still on the force. Now wouldn't a little digging into why be interesting? Oh, wait, that might just show how corrupted Alaskan politics is, and put Mrs. Palin in a good light again. Strike that.)

The problem is, the facts are known, they're ugly, and they all make Palin herself out to be reasonable, and the people standing up for the punk to be, well, not.

Good luck with this line of attack. And keep reading about inside baseball Alaska politics. You never know when it might come in handy.
9.7.2008 4:09am
Darrin Ziliak:
Wow.
I haven't seen or heard such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts since I listened to Sean Hannity's radio show on Friday.

But you just keep on living in your blinkered wonderland if you want to see Obama win, because in almost all cases the coverup in events such as this does more damage than the event itself.

But I realize that intellectual honesty isn't all that common among neocons, so I can't say that I'm surprised.
9.7.2008 4:16am
TopsecretK9 (mail):
I'm sorry, but did the left just sort of forget their hero Jane Hamsher encourages the burning of books before they are read, or are they ignoring it?
9.7.2008 4:25am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
lindgren:

It's important to dispel defamatory lies when they arise (if you can).


I proved here that NRO relayed a false statement from the McCain campaign. It's a whopper.

I know you were just relaying what York wrote, but you gave the false statement further circulation. Therefore I wonder if you might be interested in taking any steps to "dispel" it.
9.7.2008 5:33am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
poling:

the facts are known, they're ugly, and they all make Palin herself out to be reasonable


The facts show that Palin lied. That's proven here.

Jerk with the badge is meanwhile still on the force


Here are the words of someone who didn't think he was a "jerk:"

It is my pleasure to provide character reference examples for Mr. Mike Wooten. Since I have become acquainted with Mike I continue to be impressed with his integrity, work ethic, community spirit and trustworthiness.

Mike has assisted the City of Wasilla with community events … Mike is a strong supporter of the youth in our community … Mike gained respect for his patience and dedication to the young men in his care [coaching football, age 7-9] …

… I have witnessed Mike's gift of calm and kindness towards many young kids … I have never seen him raise his voice, nor lose patience, nor become aggitated [sic] in the presence of any child. Instead, Mike consistently remains a fine role model for my own children, and the other young people in Wasilla. I wish America had more people with the grace and sincerity that mirrors the character of Mike Wooten … we would have a much kinder, calmer, trustworthy nation as a result.

I beleive [sic] the United States Air Force has been fortunate to have the services of Mike these past 10 years. His work ethic, his American patriotism, his obvious dedication to traditional values, and his strong faith in God and truth is witnessed in Mike's everyday living.

It is an honor to know Mike and I am confident he will continue to grow in character and internal strength as he moves through life. I do not hesitate in praising this man …
9.7.2008 5:34am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mark:

Palin removes a state official who won't fire a State Trooper for tasering a child


The real issue here is the coverup. But let's review some other points.

The Taser incident happened in 2003. No one complained about this until 2005, when a messy divorce was happening. That's when the Palins finally decided to report this event to the police. A police investigator asked Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol why they were finally reporting it two years later, after being silent for so long. She said "because of the divorce." Kids say the darndest things!

If the incident was serious enough to warrant Wooten losing his job, then why didn't the Palins report the incident promptly?

And speaking of inexplicable delays. Wooten is accused of making a death threat against Sarah's father. But Sarah didn't report this to the father until a month later, and it wasn't reported to the police until two months later. If the threat was considered serious, why wasn't it reported sooner?

Sarah was asked that question. She said it was because "Wooten had no reason to shoot her father." In other words, she admitted she never took the threat seriously.
9.7.2008 5:57am
CB55 (mail):
Any head public librarian is in a political hot seat and they know that when they take the job. They must play by public demand vs what can and can not be included or must be excluded and their budget.

The inter-library loan system here not only gets one access to public books and magazines but also those found at medical and law schools and universities. Thru our system you get access to paid electronic services at no cost to patrons. If you own a library card you get access to books on line.
9.7.2008 5:59am
Richard Bennett (www):
This isn't the biggest whopper about Palin, not by a long shot. Just yesterday somebody from the McCain campaign said she was qualified to hold high political office. As if.
9.7.2008 8:38am
Cleanthes (mail) (www):
With regard to this "book-banning" we have only the word of Palin's political opponent.

The librarian in question wanted a bigger library. Palin wanted to eliminate government jobs. The supposedly miniscule town of Wasilla has a city museum.

In addition to the ominous sounding "book-banning" there's the notion that maybe the library is too big and maybe all those copies of Jim Wright's Reflections of a Public Man weren't really needed.
Librarians are human too and might spin this into a crazed attempt at burning books. Especially since Palin was firing said librarian's boyfriend.
9.7.2008 10:12am
Unca:
I especially like the "Harry Potter" books being on the list, which were published years after this supposed "inquiry".

Tom's Mad BLOG has a picture of something MAD Magazine is sending out as part of it's parody (They did this for Obama and McCain earlier too, with different posters). One of the things listed is this book banning charge.

http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/?p=2774

I made a post (not sure if it'll stay or not), and pointed this out.

After all, a good parody is based on truth, not lies, right?
9.7.2008 10:37am
Al (mail):

One does get the sense that this is less out pointing out inconvenient truths and outright lies than about dwelling on the latter -- or rather, broadcasting them beyond their original audience, with the hope of attributing them in an exaggerated way to others.


Sort of like pointing out the falsity of the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails? I'm sure that all those in the media who dutifully took it upon themselves to report on the anonymous e-mails about Obama for the purpose of preemptively debunking them to a wider audience (and casting blame on those dastardly Republicans) will do the same thing to debunk all of the false rumours about Palin, right?
9.7.2008 11:24am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
With regard to this "book-banning" we have only the word of Palin's political opponent.


Several people keep saying this even though Lindgren, above, said this:

Once, Palin asked the librarian about censorship in a public meeting!


Since we're discussing the subject of books, this suggestion comes to mind: read.
==============================
a good parody is based on truth, not lies, right?


A good blog comment is also "based on truth, not lies." The parody you're criticizing didn't reference the bogus list. It referenced the fact that Palin repeatedly inquired about banning books.
9.7.2008 11:58am
Guessed:
Jim,

I am not sure you will get this, but I'm trying because you seem to be pretty responsive and making an effort at course correction. In your latest comment, you say that the attack on Palin is "unprecedented in your lifetime." Honestly, reflect on whether that's fair relative to, say, Hillary Clinton; as I recall, there were persistent rumors, purposefully recirculated, that she had arranged to have Vince Foster killed to conceal their affair. This was of course before a similar campaign concerning her lesbianism, or maybe concurrent with it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I will put aside the stuff about Obama, because perhaps that's too fresh for us to have perspective about.

Also, you keep saying, and now say in the second addendum to this post, that you provided the background "because, if I had not listed his position, it would have looked like it was probably coming from the Obama campaign leadership, rather than just a low-level local Obama campaign worker who was nonetheless given a national Obama blog." I don't really doubt your intention, and I accept that you really believed that the credentials you described would have disabused the reader of its official quality rather than the opposite (though I think you are quite wrong, and at best extraordinarily subtle in the way you pursued that objective). But it simply isn't the case that the posting's location on that site was an important aspect of the reportage; it was being circulated more widely among librarians. So adding the discussion of its presence on the campaign site was a gratuity and a distraction in the first place. In fact, the only conceivable basis for adding that fact is as a corrective to Malkin, who characteristically thought it sufficient to claim simply that "the official Obama campaign website is also perpetuating the fraud." Had you the intention you now attribute to yourself, you might simply have said that she was misleading in insinuating "official" involvement, or gone with what she correctly billed as the primary source of the rumors, the librarians, and ignored the insinuation.

I applaud your interest in debunking rumors; more power to you. I just think you need to be constantly attentive to matters of emphasis (emphasizing the list, rather than the original and sounder allegation) and presentation.
9.7.2008 12:56pm
Angus:

The attack on Palin is unprecedented in my lifetime.
Unprecedented? To turn the issue around, you don't think this is an exaggeration based on your political views? Has Palin been accused on thousands of websites and in MSM outlets of assassinating Vince Foster? Seems to me that nothing Palin has been accused of reaches that level.
9.7.2008 2:22pm
Angus:
"Guessed" beat me to the punch!
9.7.2008 2:22pm