Palin's a Book Burner?

Tools    





Long Live The New Flesh
This is an intriguing little bit from the myspace blog of New York Times best selling author of humorous fiction, Christopher Moore I though I'd share here:

From Time Magazine Sep 03:

Stein is the former mayor of the town Palin was mayor of:

"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." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

Ban books because the words might seem inappropriate to some people? F*** that.

"A proven reformer who has stood up against special interest," they say. They don't say that special interest she stood up against was reading.

Here's the full article:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...837918,00.html


-



What a joke. They couldn't even reach the librarian, so we get a recounting of it from the incumbent mayor she defeated -- who says she asked about it before even holding public office, and that makes her a "book burner"?

By the way: in 1996, she told a local paper that the question was purely rhetorical. This is supported by the fact that after becoming Mayor, and then Governor, she didn't pursue anything of the sort.

You're peddling an agenda, and you're not even doing a good job of it.



Long Live The New Flesh
What a joke. They couldn't even reach the librarian, so we get a recounting of it from theincumbent mayor she defeated -- who says she asked about it before even holding public office, and that makes her a "book burner"?

By the way: in 1996, she told a local paper that the question was purely rhetorical. This is supported by the fact that after becoming Mayor, and then Governor, she didn't pursue anything of the sort.

You're peddling an agenda, and you're not even doing a good job of it.
If you're disagreeing with Time Magazine on the grounds that you think they are "peddling an agenda", I'm going to have to side with the more reputable and established Time magazine on this one.

Stein was merely describing how Palin changed the dynamic of what used to be a small town nonpartisan mayoral voting atmosphere, by injecting Washington political tactics, partisan values, and religion into the process.

According to everyone they interviewed, Palin was willing to get dirty to impose her ideology.



If you're disagreeing with Time Magazine on the grounds that you think they are "peddling an agenda", I'm going to have to side with the more reputable and established Time magazine on this one.

Uh, no, I'm not disagreeing with Time magazine, and no one who read my post with even a modicum of attention could have concluded that. I accused you of peddling an agenda. This is clearly demonstrated by the following quote:
"You're peddling an agenda"
Frankly, it's insulting that you think anyone reading this would be taken in by these weird, half-hearted attempts at redirecting criticism.

Time magazine didn't call her a "book burner," or even a "book banner." That's the agenda part. This really isn't complicated, man.

Stein was merely describing how Palin changed the dynamic of what used to be a small town nonpartisan mayoral voting atmosphere, by injecting Washington political tactics, partisan values, and religion into the process.

According to everyone they interviewed, Palin was willing to get dirty to impose her ideology.
I have no trouble believing that, though I'd still like to hear another perspective on it. Preferably from someone who isn't kinda mad at her for kicking them out of office, for example.



Long Live The New Flesh
Frankly, it's insulting that you think anyone reading this would be taken in by these weird, half-hearted attempts at redirecting criticism.
You're not making any sense though, because they (Time Magazine and Christopher Moore) wrote that. The only thing I wrote in the entire first post was that I stumbled across this in blog by a successful author.

Time Magazine wrote this:

"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." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

Not I.

First you called the article "a joke" because they couldn't get ahold of the librarian who had her job threatened (gee.. I wonder why they couldn't get ahold of her), then you say you don't disagree with Time Magazine who wrote all of that. All due respect, but I hope I'm never behind you in line at Starbucks.

I have no trouble believing that, though I'd still like to hear another perspective on it. Preferably from someone who isn't kinda mad at her for kicking them out of office, for example.
I didn't get that sense, and that's not the picture Time Magazine is painting. I got that he was honestly surprised, as were others in the town who Time interviewed, that Palin came into the race with an unprecedented approach and tactics.

One of his quotes was: "Sarah comes in with all this ideological stuff, and I was like, `Whoa.' But that got her elected: abortion, gun rights, term limits and the religious born-again thing."



I am burdened with glorious purpose
This is exactly what I alluded to in the other thread about the election. This is why they selected her. The Republican party has courted the religious right since 1992 in their cynical attempt to win elections.

I gather having concerns about a woman who has such strong religious beliefs that she may bring those beliefs to her politics (I often like to remind the people in this country that yes, we do have a separation of church and state, really, Jefferson even talked about it) is a valid point and I have to wonder why, Yoda, that is then "peddling an agenda?"

She has also stated that she wants creationism taught in schools. Thank goodness I'm not a science teacher because the first time some school board tells me to teach it, I'd have to quit.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...wCveQD92VG7C80

In that same article, it states that she doesn't think man contributes to global warming.

To discuss her views here is not an "agenda" at all. It should be cause for great concern. And what really bothers me the most is that some people that support, say, economic republican policies, like you, are the same people that help elect people such as Sarah Palin. She has no right to bring her extreme religious views to the government. And these are extreme -- especially the banning of books and teaching the Bible in school.

And I won't even go into how nasty her speech was. I find it fascinating how the most religious politicians are often the nastiest and most judgmental. Jesus would approve.



You're not making any sense though, because they (Time Magazine and Christopher Moore) wrote that. The only thing I wrote in the entire first post was that I stumbled across this in blog by a successful author.
No, you also wrote the title, and some pithy nonsense about her being against reading. Time never used the phrase "book burner" or even "book banner." You did. And that's what primarily I'm objecting to. I can't possibly make this any clearer.

First you called the article "a joke" because they couldn't get ahold of the librarian who had her job threatened (gee.. I wonder why they couldn't get ahold of her), then you say you don't disagree with Time Magazine who wrote all of that. All due respect, but I hope I'm never behind you in line at Starbucks.
No, I didn't call the article a joke. I called your post a joke, because you took a tiny piece of data, and excluded others, to form the most extreme conclusion possible which -- by completely coincidence, I'm sure -- reinforces things you already believe.

I didn't get that sense, and that's not the picture Time Magazine is painting. I got that he was honestly surprised, as were others in the town who Time interviewed, that Palin came into the race with an unprecedented approach and tactics.
Maybe he was honestly surprised; that doesn't make him an objective observer. And why didn't they include Palin's comments in '96? Doesn't strike me as particularly thorough.



A system of cells interlinked
Videodrome, can you please quote the exact part of the article in which Time Magazine called Palin a Book Burner?

Right, you can't, because they didn't say it.

Read up on excluded middle, which is a poor debating technique you are utilizing here. Let's not ignore all the shades of gray, here.

That said, I definitely have my eye on this woman, because if she did make those comments, I'm not happy about it. Still, I must question the source, as everyone should.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



This is exactly what I alluded to in the other thread about the election. This is why they selected her.
You're insinuating that she was selected because of a rhetorical question 15 years ago about how books are banned? Could it be that she was selected because she's Governor of a state that provides 20% of our domestic oil supplies, in an election year where energy is one of the biggest issues? Or how about the fact that she's picked fights with corrupt Republicans and veoted a half-billion dollars in wasteful spending, both things which jibe perfectly with McCain's campaign platform?

Sorry, but boiling down the many, many reasons he had to choose her to "it's the religious right!" is awfully simplistic. But if you carry an intense fear of religion around with you (not saying you do), you're going to see its invisible hand in everything.
The Republican party has courted the religious right since 1992 in their cynical attempt to win elections.
I hope you're not suggesting that Republicans have a monopoly on pandering. Last I checked, Democrats who stand up to unions are almost impossible to find. Democrats who stand up to the environmental lobby, and obscene policies like ethanol, are pretty rare, too.

It's not exactly a news flash that politicians sometimes look the other way regarding the fringier elements of their own party. You can dislike this (I hate it, personally), but it's not a valid reason to like one over the other, given that they both do it.
I gather having concerns about a woman who has such strong religious beliefs that she may bring those beliefs to her politics (I often like to remind the people in this country that yes, we do have a separation of church and state, really, Jefferson even talked about it) is a valid point and I have to wonder why, Yoda, that is then "peddling an agenda?"
Having concerns about how a politician's religion may effect their governing = both understandable, and important.

Taking a third-hand question that has never been corroborated or reflected in policy in any form and using it to call someone a "book burner" = ridiculous.

You don't have to defend Videodrome's outrageous spin just because you don't like Palin. You can go on disliking her without supporting these sorts of mischaracterizations. Also, if your concern is genuinely whether or not she'll bring her beliefs into her policies, then we already have a verdict. See below...

She has also stated that she wants creationism taught in schools. Thank goodness I'm not a science teacher because the first time some school board tells me to teach it, I'd have to quit.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...wCveQD92VG7C80
You're citing an article titled "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor" as an example of how she wants creationism taught in schools? Check out the quotes, they're not the kind of thing you'd expect from a right-wing idealogue:

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying.

...

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.
She even specifically pledged NOT to enact policies that would have it taught in schools:

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.
This quote sums it up nicely:
Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.
So, you're worried...why? Isn't this a perfect example of what you want: an individual recognizing the line between their personal views, and their responsibilities as a public servant? Unless you think religious people should be completely barred from holding office, I'd think you'd be thrilled with Palin's example on this issue.

And what really bothers me the most is that some people that support, say, economic republican policies, like you, are the same people that help elect people such as Sarah Palin. She has no right to bring her extreme religious views to the government. And these are extreme -- especially the banning of books and teaching the Bible in school.
She doesn't advocate the government doing either of these things. She hasn't done either of these things. You don't have to like what someone believes or does personally in order to have confidence in their ability to govern. Isn't that how most Americans feel about President Clinton's conduct? Personal disapproval, distinct from political support.

And I won't even go into how nasty her speech was. I find it fascinating how the most religious politicians are often the nastiest and most judgmental. Jesus would approve.
I don't know what Jesus thinks, personally. But this sort of response isn't really surprising. You were predisposed to dislike her, you dislike what she believes and stands for, and you didn't like the speech. Let's be honest: it'd have been shocking if you felt otherwise.

Meanwhile, people who largely agree with her seem to see it as full of valid criticism, and a necessary counterpunch to the beating she took in the media this past week. It was a combative speech, so I think it's fair to say that it was bound to magnify whatever feelings you already had about her.



Long Live The New Flesh
No, you also wrote the title, and some pithy nonsense about her being against reading. Time never used the phrase "book burner" or even "book banner." You did. And that's what primarily I'm objecting to. I can't possibly make this any clearer.
I wrote the title in the form of a question, not an accusation as you seem to be so convinced of. And no, actually, I never wrote anything about her being against reading (even though she apparently is). As you see here from the original blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=429869537

Best selling author Christopher Moore made that statement you're alluding to.

..because you took a tiny piece of data, and excluded others, to form the most extreme conclusion possible which -- by completely coincidence, I'm sure -- reinforces things you already believe.
There are no other articles about her trying to censor books. That article was written by Time on Sep 03. What other conclusion would you draw from this? :

"She [Palin] 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."

You forgot the question mark.

Videodrome, can you please quote the exact part of the article in which Time Magazine called Palin a Book Burner?

Right, you can't, because they didn't say it.
Neither did I, I asked it, based on this:

"She [Palin] 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 said, I definitely have my eye on this woman, because if she did make those comments, I'm not happy about it. Still, I must question the source, as everyone should.
The source being Time Magazine? We're not talking the National Enquirer here.



.



I wrote the title in the form of a question, not an accusation as you seem to be so convinced of.
Okay. I guess I'll go start a thread called "Videodrome: Puppy Killer?" and then hide behind the question mark as proof that I haven't technically accused you of anything. Come on.

The implication is clear, and even if it wasn't, the phrasing is so inflammatory that no form of punctuation could possibly offset it.

And no, actually, I never wrote anything about her being against reading (even though she apparently is). As you see here from the original blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ogID=429869537

Best selling author Christopher Moore made that statement you're alluding to.
Heh. So you didn't claim she was against reading, but you started a new thread just to quote someone who did, and you think she is, anyway. Great. Glad we've gotten the record straight.

There are no other articles about her trying to censor books.
Exactly. And she's never tried to. That's why this is a complete non-issue.

That article was written by Time on Sep 03. What other conclusion would you draw from this? :

"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."
From that alone, I would draw no other conclusion, but that doesn't mean it's the whole story. Palin claims the question was rhetorical, and the fact that she's never tried to have any books banned, or even raised the issue since, supports that claim.

Why do you think Time failed to include her explanation, by the way?

The source being Time Magazine? We're not talking the National Enquirer here.
You keep ascribing Stein's claim to Time. But Time hasn't made any claim regarding Palin, they only printed a quote. No one is disputing whether or not Stein said what he did; we're disputing his account, and whether or not it tells us anything significant.



A system of cells interlinked



The source being Time Magazine? We're not talking the National Enquirer here.



.
Except the source ISN'T time magazine. They aren't claiming she did this. I thought this was quite clear. That isn't the source I said to question, as TIME didn't make the allegation. I question the source that made the allegation, not the magazine that printed the quote.



Long Live The New Flesh
Okay. I guess I'll go start a thread called "Videodrome: Puppy Killer?" and then hide behind the question mark as proof that I haven't technically accused you of anything. Come on.
Was there an article written about me killing puppies by one of the single most prominent American news magazines running today?

I asked a reasonable question of what Time Magazine was implying.

The implication is clear, and even if it wasn't, the phrasing is so inflammatory that no form of punctuation could possibly offset it.
Provocative title or not, that's essentially what Time Magazine reported.

Heh. So you didn't claim she was against reading, but you started a new thread just to quote someone who did, and you think she is, anyway. Great. Glad we've gotten the record straight.
You claimed I wrote more of that original post than I did, I merely corrected you on that point. If what Time reported was true, she clearly is a against certain reading she personally disagrees with

Exactly. And she's never tried to. That's why this is a complete non-issue.
That's quite an assertion. So not only are you all knowing enough to declare she would never do such a thing, but that you know more than the reputable and established Time Magazine.

Why do you think Time failed to include her explanation, by the way?

You keep ascribing Stein's claim to Time. But Time hasn't made any claim regarding Palin, they only printed a quote. No one is disputing whether or not Stein said what he did; we're disputing his account, and whether or not it tells us anything significant.
And yet Time quoted that story, and quoted others to support that report. The article paints her in an unfavorable light at best. Certainly you can't infer from that article that she is a moderate, or neutral centrist. The entire article describes her as a dogmatic, conservative idealogue willing to drag her opponents down into the dirt to ensure her views are adhered to.



Was there an article written about me killing puppies by one of the single most prominent American news magazines running today?
Apparently, I wouldn't need an article about you killing puppies: just an article about you in which someone who doesn't like you says they heard from someone else that you asked about it.

Regardless, the point was about the power of suggestion, and how certain questions can be asked in a way that makes them basically equivalent to statements.
I asked a reasonable question of what Time Magazine was implying.
Again, it wasn't a question. Attaching a question mark to a highly inflammatory statement does not really make it a question.
Provocative title or not, that's essentially what Time Magazine reported.
No, they reported that a political opponent of hers said she asked about it. You muliplied this by a thousand or so to get "Book burner?" They reported what someone said, not what she did, or what the librarian heard her say. Nor did they report her response.
You claimed I wrote more of that original post than I did, I merely corrected you on that point. If what Time reported was true, she clearly is a against certain reading she personally disagrees with
No, because, again, all they reported was a political opponent's hearsay. They specifically excluded her response, which is that the question was rhetorical. So you have a thirdhand account from a political enemy, and her saying it was rhetorical, and somehow you surmise from this that she was "clearly" against certain reading. Ohhhkay....
That's quite an assertion. So not only are you all knowing enough to declare she would never do such a thing, but that you know more than the reputable and established Time Magazine.
No, because Time magazine hasn't taken a position on this. This is maybe the fourth time this has been pointed out to you. They printed a quote; they did not vouch for it or endorse it. In fact, they made explicit mention of the fact that they COULDN'T corroborate it. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
And yet Time quoted that story, and quoted others to support that report. The article paints her in an unfavorable light at best. Certainly you can't infer from that article that she is a moderate, or neutral centrist. The entire article describes her as a dogmatic, conservative idealogue willing to drag her opponents down into the dirt to ensure her views are adhered to.
I certainly agree with this. The article does paint her a certain way, though that doesn't make it true, anymore than an article that praises her management style would dispell criticism. You can choose to believe it or not, but to point to it as objective proof of the things you're both insinuating and stating outright, simply doesn't hold water.

Also, you didn't answer my question about why Time chose to exclude her response.



Long Live The New Flesh
Apparently, I wouldn't need an article about you killing puppies: just an article about you in which someone who doesn't like you says they heard from someone else that you asked about it.
Fortunately, that's not quite how that news was acquired. It was based on the statements of one of the City Council members (Anne Kilkenny) present during Palin's attempt to censor certain books she personally found objectionable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us...prod=permalink

Additionally, according to that article, Palin also asked many city workers employed when Stein was mayor to resign once she was in office.

"Once in office, Ms. Palin asked many of Mr. Stein’s backers to resign — something virtually unheard of in Wasilla in past elections. The public works director, city planner, museum director and others were forced out. The police chief, Irl Stambaugh, was later fired outright.

Mr. Stambaugh lost a wrongful termination lawsuit against Ms. Palin. He did not respond to a request for an interview.


Ms. Palin also upended the town’s traditional ways with a surprise edict: No employee was to talk to the news media without her permission.
"

Sounds like a real "Gestapo" style police state going on in Wasilla when Palin was mayor. Certainly not good times.

Regardless, the point was about the power of suggestion, and how certain questions can be asked in a way that makes them basically equivalent to statements.
How you interpret questions is up to you. I was merely curious about the article being reported.

No, they reported that a political opponent of hers said she asked about it. You muliplied this by a thousand or so to get "Book burner?" They reported what someone said, not what she did, or what the librarian heard her say. Nor did they report her response.
They actually quoted the librarian (Mary Ellen Emmons) pledging to “resist all efforts at censorship" in response to Palin's fascism, though. Not many other ways to see that, unfortunately.

all they reported was a political opponent's hearsay. They specifically excluded her response, which is that the question was rhetorical. So you have a thirdhand account from a political enemy, and her saying it was rhetorical, and somehow you surmise from this that she was "clearly" against certain reading. Ohhhkay....
How do you suggest to ban books rhetorically exactly? In any case, If the librarian felt she needed to pledge to "resist all efforts at censorship" in response to Palin, and considering Palin's insistence on other partisan values, including the more hard right position of injecting religion, it's not exactly a stretch to buy what's being quoted by 3 people, and being reported by now two credible major news sources.

No, because Time magazine hasn't taken a position on this. This is maybe the fourth time this has been pointed out to you. They printed a quote; they did not vouch for it or endorse it. In fact, they made explicit mention of the fact that they COULDN'T corroborate it. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

I certainly agree with this. The article does paint her a certain way, though that doesn't make it true, anymore than an article that praises her management style would dispell criticism. You can choose to believe it or not, but to point to it as objective proof of the things you're both insinuating and stating outright, simply doesn't hold water.
You're contradicting yourself when you first say: "Time magazine hasn't taken a position on this", followed by: "I certainly agree, the article does paint her a certain way".

Also, you didn't answer my question about why Time chose to exclude her response.
Who's response? Palin? They denoted that she claimed it was rhetorical.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
No offense to anyone here, but I don't understand this thread/argument at all. I have no idea why Videodrone has been so attacked here. He brought up a concern, a concern I find extremely important.

Time magazine reported a quote about Palin asking to ban books. The title of this thread and first post talked about what had been read about this. I admit I was extremely concerned about a woman who would even ask a librarian about banning books. And why do we have to assume the quote is wrong?

It seems to me that Videodrome has concerns about a woman with extremist views, as do I. Yoda wants to defend her completely because he supports the McCain ticket. I'm glad to hear that Yoda doesn't exactly support religious extremism (I hope I read that right.)

Now, I will grant you that it is nice that Sarah Palin has not pushed her agenda into the government. But I don't trust people like Sarah Palin. I'm sorry, but I don't. Ms. Palin has an opportunity to be President of the United States (I mean, jesus, McCain is 72!, that alone should worry people) and the President selects Supreme Court Justices. I don't want anyone in that position that holds those kinds of beliefs, because I'm afraid they will not use good judgement. And history bears me out....Look at Scalia.

Anyway.... this thread is sorta strange, imo. I think it is perfectly reasonable to wonder about Palin. I gather defending her is saying the source doesn't exist.

And Yoda, really, I think I can decide for myself if someone gives a nasty speech or not. She could have surprised me. You like to tell me how predisposed I am. I think I have ears and eyes and can decide for myself. It has been a very long process of listening to republicans and their talking heads over quite a few years now for me to come to the conclusions I have come to. I don't like the way they talk about people. I don't like their attacks. I don't like Rovian politics (and did you really sorta defend him to me in another thread? I wish I had the time to go into all that he's done....) I listen to conservative radio and am appalled at what these republican talking heads and supporters say. I think they are nasty. I can make that deduction, can I not?