So last night I was listening to a local rabidly left wing talk show host on the radio, and he was telling the story of how Sarah Palin several years ago when she was a mayor tried to fire a librarian because she wouldn't ban books. He then read off a list of the books that would have been banned - and it included everything from Huckleberry Finn to the Harry Potter series, and so on. The host, at least, had the integrity to read an email critique he immediately received that the list he read had never been presented by Sarah Palin but was simply a list of all the books that had ever been banned or put on lists for banning in the United States. So that left me wondering - what's the deal? I think we all know that Sarah Palin is a right-wingnut Christian - but would she really try to ban the Harry Potter books if she had the power to do so.
I found the following article which reveals that there never was a list - but I still find it disturbing, maybe you will too, or maybe not. Anyway, here is the link:
Apparently there are also some fun clips of Sarah Palin addressing some other right wingnut Christians in Alaska just a few months ago on youtube. I can't go over to youtube now, but I am sure all you have to do is plug her name in.
Now, some of what I heard was just leftwing slander and obvious spin. But there was enough there for me to find troubling.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Ryuei,
It disturbs me when there is so much exaggeration that the original point gets lost: Palin is not qualified by any stretch of the imagination to be "one heartbeat away from the Presidency."
Here's an article that details Republican/conservative reservations about Palin's readiness.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/08/these-sexist-and-elitist-attacks-on-sarah-palin-have-to-stop/
M.
Posted by: Michele at September 8, 2008 10:42 AMHi, Ryuei & all -
I think Sarah Palin has made an excellent stalking horse for the media, keeping them from focusing on substantive policy issues. Instead they get to keep the campaigning bogged down on an emotional level...........
Maybe that wasn't the primary reason for her selection, but it's working so far.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at September 8, 2008 03:34 PMI find the whole US election process captivating!
Watching it all from Australia I am fascinated by this woman. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for her. She refers to God, anti gay and pro guns.I call this ideology "GAG"!!
1. God
2. Anti-Gay
3. Guns
In Australia the more vices you have the better qualified you are for a political carreer.
As an example if Sarah Palin had stated in her first address.
"Fellow Republicans, In the past I have been a drug dealer, sex worker and sent to prison for fraud"!!
I doubt they would be cheering, yet in Australia we have political leaders with such backgrounds.
Americans require virtue where as we prefer vice.
I wouldn't take too seriously the threat of banning books or burning them etc.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Thomas
Maybe Harry Potter, maybe JD Salinger, maybe the Koran, maybe the Origin of Species, maybe the Lotus Sutra, who knows? It doesn't matter.
Everything you need to know is that she wanted to ban books that were already in the Wasilla public library, and was willing to try to fire the librarian to get it done. People who want to ban books should not be elected to office in a modern democracy. Period. It's a fine line from there to the Thought Police, and it would be really nice for the world if that could be avoided.
By the way, you have had a big influence on my life of late. I hope I can convince you on this one.
Namu myoho renge kyo.
Posted by: Stuart at September 8, 2008 10:00 PMThank goodness for librarians like Emmons, and those who refused the notion of eliminating books from public censorship. While some media and publications (such as snuff films, child pornography - that depict actual crimes) do not belong in libraries, in my personal opinion, it is better to err on the side of caution and the free market of ideas - if one is the preserve some semblance of a true democracy.
Sure, stopping public libraries from providing access to "questionable" books could be viewed by some as preventing the public from being "tainted" - however, those who control media control the public. A better idea is to teach critical thinking to people, and public debate and review.
Not by way of fear-mongering, but simply observation, totalitarian regimes typically restrict media access - books, internet, radio, paintings available to the public, etc.
I think Palin has a lot of explaining to do.
Cheers,
Kris
Incidentally, until a few months ago, I WAS an Alaskan. I actually respect Palin for her dealing with corruption in Alaskan politics. Nonetheless, the topic of banning books, of censorship of any sort raises red flags for me.
Factcheck org addresses all that.
Palin did not attempt to ban any library books.
So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/136321
This helps too:
"Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to
have creationism taught in them.
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."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_creationism
This is helpful too:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/30/35recaps.h27.html
I like that she is an ousider. Biden is up to his neck in business as usual ties with lobbyists.
I am around Christians all the time. I am a pretty much a redneck wingnut myself, with latent moonbat tendencies. Libertarian leaning Christians like her do not scare me at all. Sarah reminds me of some of my youngest sister's friends. She is very mainstream main street America.
Gongyo on Line
Current topics: Daimoku / Gongyo
Music Playlist; Current Selection: Strange Magic
http://gongyosense.blogspot.com/
Ninth Consciousness
Current topics: Power of Fours; Qualities of Bondage and Unbinding
Music Playlist; Current Selection:
http://mettasense.blogspot.com/
Gohonzon On Line
Gohonzon Woodblock Print dated 1254
http://honzonsense.blogspot.com/
Michelle,
I agree that the goofy attacks are hurting Obama; if that is what you mean. I think that smattering of quotations you linked might need context. Thery look like chopped up sound bites, Most of the Repubs who had doubts have come around.
Posted by: robin at September 10, 2008 10:50 AM"But there was enough there for me to find troubling."
Are you troubled by Obama's association with a Pastor who things HIV was engineered to infect back people? Or that he was mentored by man who used to bomb buildings? Or Father Phlager? Or
the Rezko character? I am not. Nobody could rise that quickly through the ranks of Chicago Machine Politics without working with the powers that be. It is not going to happen.
If you rule out any Republican who gives any attention to the CC's, then you rule out any Republican. It is not going to happen. The lady just strikes me as a decent person. I guess that Ii grew up in small towns might color my perspective. To her credit, she locked horns with the powers that be in her State, and won.
On experience, she has more than Obama. What do want? An experienced insider, or an inexperienced
outsider? I do not think we can have it both ways.
The alleged event predates any of the Harry Potter books, so if she did try to ban them, then she was precognitive.
Posted by: robin at September 10, 2008 07:41 PMWhether it was Harry Potter or the Encylopedia Brittanica or Mad Magazine that she wanted to ban is irrelevant. My guess is that she had no particular books in mind. What is relevant was her stated wish to ban books and her attempt to fire the librarian to accomplish this.
The fact that she also lies repeatedly about her previous support of the 'bridge to nowhere', her record on earmarks, and her political relationship to Ted Stevens is not helpful either.
More importantly, though, her running mate is a disaster.
Stuart,
I certainly respect your opinion. However, It is interesting that no one, so far, who was actually involved in Wasilla, took any of that way. That is why fact checking with primary sources is always a good idea. For years, I though the Lotus Sutra predicted Nichiren Daishonin's advent, until I read the LS, instead of accepting what I was told.
Now, from what I can gather, Palin had defeated a powerful, old boy network, entrenched, incumbent mayor; in a tough election. The Librarian had been appointed by the previous mayor. The Librarian had campaigned for the prior mayor. It appears the previous mayor might have 'cleaned house' and put in his own people.
Mayor Palin had every reason to believe the former mayor's cronies would attempt to undermine her, out of loyalty to their old boss. So she put the Librarian and others through loyalty tests. Those were composed in part of challenging hypothetical questions; Like, what if I told you to do something outrageous -- would you support me or undermine me? The Librarian said no, and was fired a day later. After subsequent talks, Palin relented, she was satisfied that the Librarian would do her job and would not undermine her. All indications are they worked together just fine.
There never was a list and never was any effort to ban any books. It was a hypothetical question used as part of a loyalty test. Sarah could have done what most newly elected mayors do, just fired the previous mayor's perceived cronies, and put in her own people. Instead, she changed the way business was done.
This is nothing more than part of a well financed and coordinated effort to smear Sarah Palin's lipstick. So far, it is backfiring. There is nothing there; so they are trying to connect dots and manufacture dirt. Engyo is right, it has effectively served as a stalking horse. It is just really hard to bork or gingrich a decent person. It is also not a very smart strategy in this election. If it becomes Palin versus media hit pieces, McCain will win. After two weeks of relentless efforts to smear Palin's lipstick, McCain now leads on the War in Iraq, and the economy. Palin now has a higher approval rating than Obama, McCain, or Biden. Brilliant strategery!
Posted by: robin at September 11, 2008 08:35 AMKris,
I thought you were still in Alaska? So the carrots were not Alaskan carrots? I have world class peppers, and herbs, but leaf blight and beetles got the rest.
I have looked at everything I could find on the book issue. It appears to be what Sarah said it was -- a hypothetical question {she said rhetorical. I get those confused too} to test the Librarian's loyalty. It was like, 'what if I asked you to remove books."
One correction to my other post. The Librarian was not fired because of her answer to that question at all. It might even have been the right answer. There was evidently another issue, one that got resolved a day later. That is what it looks like right now.
I think in an election, non-attachment to views applies even more than in Buddhism. Both sides generally try to sound bite the opponent. The 'special needs' Education Budget smear was a good example. Huffington Post and CNN thought they had caught Palin cutting that budget, and said "gotcha." It turns out, they had badly misread the documents. Those budgets were increased dramatically, to unprecedented levels. I wonder if those msdia apologized to readers and viewers for their gaffes?
It is rather sad. I think McCain and Obama both would rather run a straight shooting campaign. However, Obama took the first cheap shot, with the how many houses issue, and now McCain fires back with the LSOAP gaffe. That lipstick ad was fair, I think. The sex ad is not, and ought to be yanked. They have not hit him with the "You're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." gaffe, I hope they do go there.
On media : The right wingnut gossip mill had been pretty much discredited well before this election. No one pays much attention to Newsmax anymore. Now, the moonbat bloggers have shot themselves in the foot trying to smear Sarah's lipstick. I do not know that we can hold Obama responsible for them; the jury is out and whether he and / or the DNC has covertly coordinated with them; the way Clinton's staff once clearly did with Salon.com.
I am really ambivalent on who wins. I assume the Republican POV in Buddhist discussions, because someone has to do it, and I lean that way a bit. Neither Party is going to repeal dukkha though.
gassho
robin
Posted by: robin at September 11, 2008 09:27 AM"I hope they do go there."
I mean I hope they do go NOT there.
The sex ad was a counter to an Obama ad attacking McCain's record on Education. I have few details on that one.
"'Sen. Barack Obama yesterday charged rival Sen. John McCain with 'three decades of indifference on education' ... 'He has not done one thing to truly improve the quality of public education in our country. Not one real proposal or law or initiative. Nothing,' Obama declared."
"Obama bolstered the attack on McCain's education record with a new television commercial claiming that the Republican's economic plan would give '$200 billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools.'"
Neither side is willing to unilaterally disarm.
r
Posted by: robin at September 11, 2008 09:42 AMThanks for all the comments - I am tending to agree that Sarah Palin was primarily interested in testing loyalty rather than in actually banning books (because of some Christian agenda as I had feared).
Now I knew from listening to the radio that the list was not connected to Palin at all. It occured to me that a lot of this was hysteria - but as far as I am concerned you can never be too careful when it comes to this kind of thing. But I will concede that I am also seeing a lot of hysteria from leftwingnuts that is discrediting them more than their targets.
And for the record - I am convinced that McCain will become president and that war with Iran will be an inevitability. I am saying this here and now so that a year or two down the line I can say "I told you so."
Oh, and I did some reading up on Iran's military. I think they may be the same kind of paper tiger as the former Soviet Union's conventional military. As long as we don't have to occupy them and get involved in a third guerilla war but bomb and disrupt them from afar and keep their terrorist squads out of our own backyard we should be fine.
Now - I want to be clear on this though - I do not approve of a war with Iran. I do approve of keeping them from having nuclear weapons and I do think the ayatollahs there are evil, but a war with Iran would in no way whatsoever even meet the so-called "Just War" criteria as found expressed in the Catholic Catechism, let alone satisfy the Buddhist karmic calculus of what could be considered wholesome. So I do not approve. I am just stating that I truly think a McCain presidency followed by a war with Iran is inevitable and we liberal types have to just suck it up and hope the suicide bombers don't make it into our own cities and towns (not that I want them doing there thing anywhere else either).
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
One thing Ryuei, wingnuts are right. The lefties are moonbats. Let's try to keep the technical terms straight. I do not know the pali, sanskrit,
or kanji equivalents though.
gassho
robin
Posted by: robin at September 11, 2008 10:49 AMI personally think the whole Sara Palin thing has been blown way out of proportion; she's not a pitbull with lipstick, she's George W Bush with lipstick. So if you want to see the environment go even further down the tubes and Roe vs Wade reversed and our economy slide deeper in the dumps because of our desire for so called "victory" in Iraq or worse yet another sensless war then ignore the consequences of this election and/or vote for McCain. Oh and by the way Palin is a liar and an embarassment any which way you want to look at it. Whether it's her pregnant daughter or her lack of awareness of the rest of the world as evidented by her silly statements, "I got my foreign policy experience looking at Russia from on of our itty bitty islands, they're are neighbors you know." Not to mention her lack of education and experience in anything but running a small town with 40 methlabs in the largest welfare state with the highest rate of rape and incest in country. Despite pretending she will reform Washington she has been sucking up federal tax money since day one. California gets short-changed by the Federal Government because of states like Alaska. If McCain's elected it will be worse than Ike or Katrina combined.
Posted by: Jean at September 13, 2008 06:56 PMJean?,
I agree with everything before the first:
Wow! Next time, do not hold back! Tell us what you really think.
Posted by: robin at September 14, 2008 05:03 PMJean,
You know, when someone spews that kind of spite and hatred {pregnant daughter reference, ugh}, I am tempted to reply with an anti-Obama rant. It would not be all that hard to do.
Why Do Some States Feast on Federal Spending, Not Others?
For whatever reason, so-called "blue states" tend to be high-income areas that pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Some 84 percent of federal individual income taxes—which account for over 40 percent of federal revenue—are paid by the those in the top 25 percent of the income distribution. The majority of these taxpayers live in wealthy, urban, politically "blue" areas like New York, California, and Massachusetts.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html
One possible reason why Alaska receives so much per capita is that 60% of of the State is owned by the Federal Government? Alaska also has a large per capita federal civilian and military presence. One in three jobs in Alaska—about 96,000—depend on current federal spending.
Alaskans are getting older: the population over 65 tripled in the past 20 years, so SSA spending there is up. Medicaid was the largest grant program in 2002—$500 million—followed by grants care system (about $480 million) and road construction ($400 million).
Land and resource management are also big expenses
Thefederal government owns 240 million acres in Alaska most of it in parks and otherprotected areas. Federal obligations to indigenous people also add to spending in Alaska, where close to 20 percent of the people are Alaska Natives eligible for special health care an other programs. Nation wide, about 1 percent of American indigenous people.
Another thing that increases federal spending is
that Alaska joined the union only in 1959; it is still building roads, airports, water and sewer systems, and other intrastructure. Federal money pays a lot of the costs of building that infrastructure.
California gets $232.3 billion in federal money. Compare that to Alaska's 7.6 billion. Do you really think Alaska's 200 million in earmarks takes money from California? If California got every federal dollar that goes to Alaska, no one would even notice.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin submitted a request this year for 31 federal earmarks worth $197.8 millio
$71 million to build sanitation systems in rural areas
$25 million to compensate for reductions in the salmon harvest
$13.7 million to create a military readiness center
$10.4 million to install runway lighting at rural airports
$10 million to install large-diameter fish passage culverts
$8.7 million to recruit and train workers to build a natural gas pipeline
$6.3 million to upgrade communications for Alaska's Air National Guard 168th Air Refueling Wing
$5 million to help schools meet No Child Left Behind requirements
$4 million to build and maintain recreation trails
$4 million to conserve salmon in the Yukon River