Posted on 09/06/2008 8:28:45 PM PDT by library user
Great points!!!
You're right. She's not banning books from Amazon - she's not banning them from the Internet. She's banning them from in institution we all support with our tax dollars.
If liberals keep pushing to have our libraries transformed into porn palaces, they'll find out we'd rather close the libraries - and by their way of thinking "ban all of 'em..."
Michelle Malkin has already blown this out of the water.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/
Wow they really hate her.
There are plenty of books worth keeping out of stacks that children or teens can access.
Plz, like I subscribe to that garbage in the first place.
I was going to ask the same thing.
I’ve never read it. It looks very overrated.
Time Magazine Paid Circulation by Year (millions)
2002 = 4.1
2003 = 4.1
2004 = 4.0
2005 = 4.0
2006 = 4.1
2007 = 3.4
2008 = Time magazine’s single copy sales fell 7 percent, but its overall paid circulation (-0.3 percent) was left virtually untouched.
Has Time run the story about about trying to jail the WGN DJ in Chicago? Even if Palin sought to ban books, which is doubtful, the undisputed truth is that Obama wants his critics prosecuted and locked up.
Go to your bookstore, take out all the Slimes subscription litter cards and drop them in the mail for proce$$ing.
The story isn’t proven as a fact, but lets examine the scenario.
Small town, religion, and a newcomer to politics. New mayor wants to fix something she considers wrong...so she wants a couple of books removed from the library...she even has a list already made up, which would indicate that she’s done her research (as you’d expect from a college grad).
She shows up to tangle with the librarian, wearing the hat of the mayor. It ought to be simple and easy. The librarian won’t budge (as you’d expect from 99.9 percent of all librarians). A book is a book...you can’t dissolve it away.
So when the threat of termination comes up...I’m guessing the librarian simply smiled. To make this threat come true...you have to fire with “cause”, because, you end up in municipal court with official paperwork detailing the reason. The minute the judge involved sees “won’t ban books” as the cause...the town is in serious trouble and would likely have to reinstate the librarian or pay her off. These days? You’d be talking about $300k minimum. No small town can afford to just hand money out, and the political figure who screwed up...is finished in the next election.
So Mayor Sarah at that point, grasped the refusal to give in by the librarian and the impact on her career...thus giving up her stupid idea.
The only problem I now see...is that she has ultra strong religious convictions...and would be agreeable to the banning of books, or holding hostage various scientific principals. Its a great thing to have strong religious character and morals....at some point, you run across a line where you threaten other people and their beliefs. We did write that silly provision into the constitution, you know....freedom of religion, which coequals the concept of freedom from religion.
So you’re surprised by another sear? Time Magazine is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for DNC talking points.
I don't know how this rumor got started, but it isn't true.
My daughter worked at a local Starbucks until very recently. She was in charge of the program at her store to get people to buy coffee to donate to the troops in Iraq.
She was very good at getting people to do this as well as getting the other employees to get the customers to do this. In fact, she was recognized by Starbucks for her success in doing so.
That will teach those McCain people who dismissed Time’s Jay Carney on FOX News a couple of days ago.
This is a key point that is almost always ignored in these discussions. Almost any K-12 library has extremely limited capacity (only a few thousand volumes, usually) compared to the utterly vast number of books in existence. Careful selection criteria MUST be used b/c neither shelf space nor budgets can allow for indiscriminate stocking of titles the way the Library of Congress or NY Public Library or Harvard U. can afford to do.
So, even before any content debates are begun, the FACT is that every book in a school library takes up space that could be occupied by another, different book.
Then, of course, it IS perfectly appropriate to ask what are age-appropriate titles. Should an elementary school stock books with the most explicit descriptions of sex, violence, drugs? [mommy, what is ‘fisting’? mommy, what is ‘mainlining’? etc.] Sounds like a lot of liberals think so, b/c to insist upon keeping such things out of 8 yr. old hands would be “censorship.”
What about books replete with instances of crude racism and/or sexism? Are taxpayers required to offer those to young students?
Where the debate can get more heated is on the high school level, where liberals are usually more ferocious about insisting upon stocking novels that might be controversial to some but are at least slightly in the pantheon of “literature” (not sure Henry Miller is that much of a writer but his books used to be exciting for people looking for something salacious).
Anyway, it is all lib propaganda to say that any attempt for a community to have input or control over the titles stocked by SCHOOL libraries is evil “censorship” or book banning — not adult in the community is affected in the slightest way by what schools do or do not offer to CHILDREN for their educational fare. The adults can still freely buy or borrow any book under the sun.
Great leap you made from possibly wanting to remove a book from a local library to a Christian boogey-man. What are you even doing here?
Ah, correction — I was thinking it was about school library books but it appears to be about the town public library.... same issues apply to very limited space, a local public library should only stock what is truly worthwhile etc.
But the leftist ALA has propagandized so thoroughly for so many years that it is always “censorship” to think a small library ought to exercise some intelligence and ethics over its acquisition and retention policies (most libraries of limited space also get RID of books annually in order to make space for newer ones considered more valuable to the collection). ALL public libraries make all sorts of decisions all the time about what books are or are not worthy of being in their collections. What librarians really are asserting in these debates is that THEY are the sole arbiters of what belongs in the town library. It should be perfectly appropriate to question their judgments as public officials, but of course liberals go into hysterical rage when anyone tries to do so.
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.