On Sarah Palin, book banning and cannibalism
Thu, 09/04/2008 - 17:09 — Ben
Update (Friday, Sept. 5) The list of books Palin wanted to ban that Googlers seek doesn't exist. The link below points to a comment in a thread at Librarian.net. But as several commenters have pointed out there and elsewhere, the list includes books -- such as the Harry Potter series -- published after Palin allegedly sought to have the books removed. Unless Palin can manipulate the laws of space and time, there's nothing really to get worked up about. The bottom line, according to the stories so far published in the New York Times, Time and elsewhere, is that Palin didn't ban anything. For some, the absence of evidence is no reason to exonerate the accused from charges of being a "Jesus-Powered ChristoNazi." For the sane, however, there are other issues to pursue. I will post more if concrete information becomes available.
Last night, our friend the Big Klosowski tweeted: "Sarah Palin supports the banning of books. That's very forward thinking of her. Small town and closed minded. Great." At the time I thought, What's that about? Then I thought, Gee, I should look into that. Then I was distracted by something shiny. Then a few minutes ago, I found this Time magazine piece on Palin's "rough record."
Here's the relevant passage:
(Former Wasilla Mayor John) Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker (nee Eamons), couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Hmmm. Disturbing if true, but not especially enlightening. The passage raises more questions than it answers. "Banning" is a loaded term. What books did Palin want to ban and why? (Here's a list, which is totally unconfirmed completely bogus.) The story refers to "some voters" who "thought (the books) had inappropriate language"? Which voters? What was the language? "Inappropriate" for whom? Kids under the age of 10? 12? 18? What? The source of the anecdote, Stein, is a former Palin ally turned opponent. We don't really know whether the librarian was "aghast" or why. We don't know the full context of Palin's "threat" to fire the librarian.
(Click on "Read more" down below the row of icons at the bottom of this post.)
Now, I suppose at this point I need to rehearse all of the standard caveats and disclosures. When it comes to the First Amendment, I'm an extreme libertarian. I don't like book banning or censorship. I don't like political meddling in public libraries. I think parents need to take responsibility for monitoring the media their kids consume, and it isn't government's job to be play book cop. OK? OK.
But I still don't know if Sarah Palin is a book banner. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. The Time story simply isn't helpful. What else is out there? Well, there's this story from the Boston Herald. Here's the crux: "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." Again, this is awfully vague. But then there's this: "Stein had hired many of the department heads. Emmons ... had publicly supported him against Palin."
Do you see the problem here? We have a Palin opponent giving an account about another Palin opponent, who cannot confirm or deny the story, and we have no details, no specific policy proposals, no actual books -- as far as I know -- pulled from the library shelves at Palin's behest. All we have is a hint of censorious intent. Which is, evidently, good enough for People for the American Way:
Time Magazine today reports that Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin attempted to ban books from her local library as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and then threatened to fire the librarian who stood up to her for not giving “full support” to the mayor. People For the American Way president Kathryn Kolbert issued the following statement:
“People can disagree about a lot of things, but censorship is completely beyond the pale. Our democracy was founded on the belief that government shouldn’t tell people what kinds of books to read or what kind of beliefs to hold. No one with that kind of history should be anywhere near the White House. Sarah Palin needs to clarify her stance on freedom of speech immediately, and John McCain needs to explain why he chose a running mate with so little regard for the Constitution.”
I love that last clause. Maybe Kathryn Kolbert needs to explain why her organization favors cannibalism. I have no proof, of course, that members of People for the American Way are cannibals. But if I tried hard enough, I might be able to find a cannibal who's given money to Norman Lear's silly group. Just like Sarah Palin might favor pulling certain books off of library shelves. Keeping in the spirit of this week's press coverage, I'm prepared to assert, absent rock solid evidence -- or any evidence at all -- nobody can say for certain. Hey, I'm just asking questions. I'm sure Roger Simon would approve.
blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com |
