Palin Asked About Censoring Books With Wasilla Librarian
Posted on 09/06/2008 1:36:23 AM PDT by Stoat
I wonder if any of these librarians are using public funds or facilities (at their libraries) to circulate this fraud.
That is campaigning using public facilities and funds.
Not that anyone will look into it and prosecute it, but I suspect it is going on if one reads between the lines here.
Interesting. This list doesn’t include “The Left-hand of Darkness”, which is always on book-burner’s lists.
I’m sorry. After looking through that list, I’m going to have to call BS on this smear. The Bastard by John Jakes is a favorite of mine. Knowing Sarah Palin, I’ll bet it’s a favorite of hers also.
You know those losers will keep spreading their FUD until they've tossed so much SH!T that the voters will be too confused to know truth from rumors.
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Good Grief! If she was sitting around reading all these books and then trying to get all of them banned, she would have gotten absolutely nothing else done.
Where do you think they got the list? Are there people out there compiling lists of books to ban? The list looks almost random (Chaucer and Boccaccio, Steinbeck and Faulkner?) but too long for someone to just come up with of the top of their head. I don’t see what they have in common.
Some of those books are good, some bad. I don’t know if any are dangerous, or if any book can be dangerous (outside of Das Kapital). But I wonder, so long as we have libraries (and I don’t believe that they are necessary, or a true “public good”), why can’t we ban things.
According to the First Ammendment, censorship of private publishing houses or bookstores is out of the question. But those private organizations can, of course, censor themselves. Why can’t libraries censor themselves, too? They are not taking books out of circulation, but rather taking them out of their building, just like Barnes and Noble does every day.
Schools, as we all know, must use discretion in what they show the children, partly out of time-constraints and partly out of propriety. The difference between a library and a public school is that adults attend libraries too. They can wrangle adults into a seperate section. But do they want to? Does the government serve its constituency by providing pornography?
That Court decision about free speech and library pornography was asinine. The state has no duty to provide strange men with space to masturbate in. If we’re going to have public libraries, they should be able to use their discretion. If they choose to ban masterpieces like the Decameron and Canterbury Tales, the public will scoff, and customers will go elswhere.
Sarah Palin must be incredibly well-read to have the knowledge that would allow her to put these books on a banned books list.
LOL! It is so ridiculous.
This can’t be right. I don’t see the book “Darkhorse” (hey - fits right in for the election!) that we used to pass around in 8th-grade library
“.. and the spasms running up her back felt like tiny little ski boots...”
I've done cursory research lately to debunk a falsehood spreader here locally on another political matter and found something striking trying to ferret out truth and facts:
There a 1,000 Monkeys Typing for the 'rats.
I imagine it's their way of balancing discussions--by spreading outright lies.
PWNED!
“One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn”
No way she’d ban this one.
“A Separate Peace by John Knowles”
Or this (National Review called it a masterpiece).
“Brave New World by Aldous Huxley”
Or this. Or several others.
“Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau”
“The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood”
“The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger”
These can go. I won’t miss them.
“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain”
Isn’t it ironic that this book is burned only because of political correctness (there’s a very naughty word in there).
“The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare”
This one too. Will was such an anti-semite.
What are you waiting for?
The publication of such lists, “books to be banned”, are usually a compilation of many lists promulgated by interest groups who find the subject matter of these books objectionable in some way.
Some of the books on this list (from this post) have been recommended as “objectionable” by Roman Catholic organizations, the NAACP, some Evangelical Baptist groups, and other special interest groups too numerous to recount.
I really see no reason for the lists other than many of these books shouldn’t be on the mandatory (or voluntary) reading lists of children less than 18-years old. Parents should make the judgement calls on what their children read, no one else.
You're quite welcome, and I'm delighted that you've found it to be worthwhile :-)
I've done cursory research lately to debunk a falsehood spreader here locally on another political matter and found something striking trying to ferret out truth and facts:
There a 1,000 Monkeys Typing for the 'rats.
I certainly appreciate what you're doing and I doubt that I would be going out on a limb to say that all Patriots appreciate what you're doing....and I'm SURE that Governor Palin appreciates what you're doing :-)
I imagine it's their way of balancing discussions--by spreading outright lies.
I suppose if a person has no moral foundation, has a worldview that is built upon hysteria, lies and endlessly-disproven political and economic concepts, has a computer and nothing but time on his hands, and feels that the fabric of his existence is falling apart because Governor Palin is on the road that will likely take her to the Presidency not too many years from now, then yes I guess spreading malicious lies is about all they have left to do.
Im shocked they didnt add “Fahrenheit 451” to that fake list.
These tactics show desperation. They’d try Kamikaze attacks if they could.
*sigh* I feel alone in the woods...
That number seems a bit low -- make it thousands. They literally swarm onto political blogs and news sites in the space of a few hours, and, of course, report back to Monkey HQ when there's something negative (however true) about O making the rounds. Monkey HQ then immediately translates that into a distorted "smear" orchestrated by the McCain campaign. The closer the "smear" is to the truth, the more hysterical the reaction.
Community activism, fug-ugly internet style.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.