Pajamas Media

28 Comments

1. Marc Malone:

Yeah, yeah. Islamo-fascists. Intimidation. Cowering and snivelling. Collaborators. What’s new?

Oct 9, 2008 - 12:52 am 2. john from cinncinati:

doesn’t this fall under the RICO act?

Oct 9, 2008 - 3:32 am 3. Dick Gonzalez:

Let me get this straight:

There are insane fake religious gangsters who want to ban books they don’t like and, even, threaten their authors.

Therefore, a U.S. vice presidential candidate should feel free to pressure librarians to ban books she doesn’t like.

Hmmmm. Not persuasive at all…

Oct 9, 2008 - 4:53 am 4. Lisa:

Except she didn’t pressure or intimidate anyone to remove books, Dick. She asked a question and that was all.

Oct 9, 2008 - 5:25 am 5. SarahW:

Gonzalez you might notice that the “insanity” is slight more pervasive and is not only tolerated but perpetuated by the left when it ought to be firmly resisted.

This was my face palm moment of last week.

The screencap is from the discussion pages of the UK mail. England is lost.

Oct 9, 2008 - 5:31 am 6. Andres Diaz-Gonzalez:

Dick, what an apt name; you missed the point or better yet, as we say in spanish: the worst kind of blindness is not wanting to see. The point is NOT to excuse Sarah Palin for what she did because someone else is doing it, the point is she did not do it and the press was all over “it”; these “fake religious gangsters” did it and no one reports on it, not even to compare it to Palin’s “story”. Get it now? You and your Main Stream Media have the obejectivity of those “fake religious gangsters” when it comes to people you don’t like; in other words so even YOU can understand, you are the same and won’t see that they also want to get rid of you until it is too late.

Oct 9, 2008 - 5:41 am 7. jerry:

Dickie:

It is amazing that you Obama-istas stick to long debunked stories about Sarah Palin. She never asked that the books be banned. She asked that they not be available in stacks where children can the see them. They would still be available to adults. Do you think Pornography or adult themed materials should be in a Children’s bookstore.

Something tells that like anyone else who uses the moral equivalency argument you believe that banning books is ok as long as you are the banner.

Oct 9, 2008 - 5:43 am 8. Dumbass White Guy:

Um, Dick, is it?

Your statement is more than a little disingenuous.

Palin made the query and never pursued it. There are a number of explanations of why she never took it any further but in no way does the author make the kind of connection you state.

You’re simply fabricating from whole cloth.

Nice try, friend but no dice.

DaWG
A resident of America’s Hat.©

Oct 9, 2008 - 5:50 am 9. The Book-Banning Double Standard « OpenLifeCafe:

[...] At least Rushdie, having endured years of living under police protection following Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa calling for his murder, is on solid ground. Not so the Washington Post. Along with most other U.S. media outlets, the Post declined to publish the Mohammed cartoons when that controversy raged back in 2005; perhaps it doesn’t consider itself to be a “leading cultural institution.” That said, we should welcome the paper’s newfound resolve: perhaps when The Jewel of Medina appears in the U.S. — the book has been taken up by another publisher — the Post will be first in the queue for serialization rights.   Read More.. [...]

Oct 9, 2008 - 5:53 am 10. J.J. Sefton:

Let me get this straight: Ultra feminist liberal American professor, and a staunch defender of Islam, the religion of “peace” (and misogyny).

A perfect illustration of liberal pretzel logic hypocrisy.

’nuff said…..

Oct 9, 2008 - 6:00 am 11. Kerry:

Let me get this straight.

There are very real, very dangerous people who want to freaking *kill* us. Oh, and by the way, they actually *do* want to burn books.

But instead, our Media – and one of our political parties – wants to obsess over an allegation that a vice Presidential candidate wanted a book (a really bad book, btw, but that’s neither here nor there) out of a small library.

Oct 9, 2008 - 6:08 am 12. Brian E.Orgeron:

“Therefore, a U.S. vice presidential candidate should feel free to pressure librarians to ban books she doesn’t like.”

Sorry Bozo but that never happened. The “vice presidential candidate” you’re talking about wanted to stop a leftist librarian from banning books, not the other way around! So typical of communist idiots! Don’t let the facts get in the way!

If this idiot Spellburg is so infatuated with the false religion of Islam, than why don’t she move over there, and see how women are treated! OH that’s right women don’t have rights under that gutter religion!

Oct 9, 2008 - 6:14 am 13. dennis60:

Look no further for book bannings then the U.S. congressional black caucus. Maxine Waters leads the way in squashing the first admendment, and so arrogant that she has pressured Japan into a book banning and has vowed to make India ban a certain book, written in India for Indian children. The book in question is Little Black Sambo. Considered in India as a national treasure.

Oct 9, 2008 - 6:40 am 14. The Irascible Chef » Headlines of the day:

[...] back – has managed to register 105% of Indianapolis to vote in this election. —The Anchoress The book-banning double standard —Mike McNally Poll: Obama loses another point, McCain now within five —Rasmussen Hmmmmm [...]

Oct 9, 2008 - 7:27 am 15. geokster:

Here is how the left uses the false “moral equivalancy” argument. In order to counter any criticism of themselves, no matter how valid, they will either find, then wildly exaggerate, or even make up, something that when totally pulled out of context, looks sort of like the same thing when done by a rightwinger.

A perfect example:

A leftist pushes an old lady into the path of a speeding bus and she gets killed. A conservative pushes an old lady OUT of the path of a speeding bus and gets himself killed saving her.

When the leftist is criticized, he will say that the other side does it too, because they both pushed an old lady around.

Oct 9, 2008 - 7:30 am 16. spudly:

I disagree with banning books. The issue in question is not “banning,” however. If you can still buy the book, it is not banned, period. The issue in this case is what books libraries chose to buy. Note that I’m against removing a book that has already been bought from a public library. That said, libraries “ban” books by choosing not to buy them in the first place all the time. In fact, the do more “banning” than buying in this sense.

All libraries have limited budgets and therefore cannot hope to buy one of every single book published each year. In fact, they cannot buy even a simple majority of books published in a year. As a result, librarians are editorializing the content of their libraries by OMISSION all the time. They chose to buy, say, a Noam Chomsky book, but not a Bernard Lewis. They have both book by Obama, but only one (there is only one) by McCain. They have a choice; vet each book for political agenda—as some sort of continuum—then make sure things are completely balanced, or they don’t. They cannot possibly do the former. So they maybe buy popular books. On Oprah’s list? They buy it. On National Review’s list—”National Review has a list? (what is National Review?)” They buy what they think will be popular, filtered by what they personally might like. Not surprising, they are human beings, we’d all do that.

I’d be willing to bet the US population of librarians closely matches the US population of teachers in terms of political affiliation. I’d also be willing to bet the overall political bent of US libraries is liberal by omission.

Oct 9, 2008 - 8:36 am 17. Umslopagus Reich:

The only way to defeat Radical Islam is to kill them all! They seem to have carte blanche to attack and murder anyone they deem offensive to their religion or way of life, yet immune to the same. Why is that? So, if their intentions and actions are to destroy our way of life by foisting theirs upon us via violence, why not just wipe their sorry asses off the face of the earth? Then we will have peace in this world…relatively anyway. Next would be Liberals.

Oct 9, 2008 - 9:02 am 18. Dave:

Cowardice. That is the one-word explanation
of why critics are condemned while murderes get a pass.

And yes, I am too calling those with Bush Derangement Syndrome, McCain Derangement Syndrome and especially those with Palin Derangement Syndrome cowards.

Were the above-mentioned individuals actually dangerous, their critics would not come out from under the bed.

Oct 9, 2008 - 9:25 am 19. DLONGLET:

BIDEN MAKES BUSH LOOK LIKE A BLACK BELT MENSA

Oct 9, 2008 - 10:00 am 20. Someone75:

Do I really need to explain the difference to you people? Palin would be running for Vice President. Someone who is openly hostile towards free speech in a position of leadership will do a lot more damage than a few extremists who object to a couple books a year. Seriously guys – where is the small town common sense you brag about every chance you get?

Oct 9, 2008 - 11:08 am 21. spudly:

Someone75, a “position of leadership” in this case doesn’t matter. The 1st Amendment will not be overturned any time soon. It is a plain fact that libraries already “ban” more books than they loan. Or do you suggest that small town (or even city) libraries actually have collections that include every single book ever published?

Each choice of a book to buy with valuable (and limited) public funds is in fact a political decision. When you spend public money, the public has a right to make decisions on the spending. In a representative democracy, that means oversight by elected officials. The reality is that libraries are given funds, and the books are chosen by the librarians with no oversight other than possible complaints by citizens.

Ideally, a public library should attempt to balance books that have an obvious political bias. It’s very complicated, though. How many slightly conservative books equal one Michael Moore screed? Do you weight them on the number of pages or words?

The same can be said of public radio and public television. Both are clearly liberal in their editorial bias, there is no question. My local university radio station plays NPR (I listen daily), and even total moonbat screeds like Democracy Now! They have no “equal time” for right wing screeds to balance DN!, and no Fox News radio to balance NPR. It is completely one-sided.

That’s why I personally believe that public broadcasting should get zero tax money, and the more I think of it, the more I think that libraries either need to go the same way, or have bipartisan acquisition committees.

Oct 9, 2008 - 11:36 am 22. jerry:

Someone:

Keep up the talking points even though it has been debunked. Do you just come here to repeat the lie or do you really believe it.

Obama is more likely to crack down on dissent. His surrogates in Missouri have already threaten to bring down the law on those who disagree with one.

Once again Obama-istas engage in projecting their own totalitarian impulses on others.

Oct 9, 2008 - 12:02 pm 23. Someone75:

Spudly:

I appreciate your response, but I have to disagree. I don’t think the libraries should have to justify anything in regards to what books they select. They should be above politics. Sure, they get money from the state, but since no single tax payer can know everything about every book, why don’t we leave it up to the experts? The people with graduate degrees in library science – the people whose job it is to buy a quality collection of books?

All I’m arguing for is what conservatives want – keep the government’s hands out of our business. Don’t let them touch our libraries.

Jerry: Talking points? Please. That’s an easy response to any post that you deem “liberal”. Personally, I haven’t heard much about this book banning in the news. These are my opinions as a free citizen of the USA.

And about totalitarianism – who is the one calling for freedom and who is the one trying to take it away? If Palin was really about freedom, she wouldn’t try to ban books. And no, it hasn’t been debunked. She tried to get a children’s book banned because it dealt with homosexuality.

Oct 9, 2008 - 1:34 pm 24. Dave Surls:

“All I’m arguing for is what conservatives want – keep the government’s hands out of our business. Don’t let them touch our libraries.”

Yeah, don’t let the government touch all those government run libraries!

That’s the ticket

Oct 9, 2008 - 3:57 pm 25. Steynian 267 « Free Mark Steyn!:

[...] THE BOOK-BANNING Double Standard, by Mike McNally– The real threat to free speech isn’t Sarah Palin: [...]

Oct 9, 2008 - 4:34 pm 26. Someone75:

Dave:

Try to understand what I’m saying. The government provides infrastructure, financial support, and basic management. Beyond that, it should not be up to them what the library chooses to include. Looks like the small town common sense has taken a leave of absence. Or maybe it just moved to the big evil city and is now voting democratic.

Oct 9, 2008 - 5:54 pm 27. Marc Malone:

Someone75 – I’ll make it simpler for you. If I’m Mayor, I get to choose the books if I want, not the city librarian who works for me. I make the budget. I sign the checks, including her paycheck. I’m the one responsible to the people. The librarian is NOT some unelected book-tator.

If I think a graphic homo porno book should not be out open on display, and tell you to make sure that doesn’t happen, and you defy me, I’ll 86 you so fast, you’ll go through the revolving door twice.

Mayor Palin asked during a public interview if the librarian would remove a book if Palin asked. The librarian said , no. A few weeks later, she was canned. She was later re-hired, after she learned who was boss.

Thats’s how government gets reformed, by bureaucrats and others learning who’s boss. Palin was being responsive to the people who elected her. She heard their complaints, investigated, and laid down the law.

That’s my take from the info available. You have a problem with that approach, or do you still think the librarian should have absolute, unchallenged authority?

Oct 9, 2008 - 9:21 pm 28. Someone75:

Marc:

There’s a big difference between a children’s book dealing with homosexuality and gay porn. Like it or not, you don’t get to decide what’s best for everyone. If we can ban a children’s book that deals with a legitimate issue, then why shouldn’t we be able to ban a children’s book dealing with Christianity? If you want your rights protected, then you have to protect EVERYONE’s rights.

Firing a librarian over a book you don’t like is a little too 1984 for me. You guys talk about Obama like he’s practicing information control. Banning books is straight out of Orwell! Once we lose our intellectual freedom, we’re no longer America.

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think anyone should stand in the way of intellectual freedom. There will always be plenty of conservative activists who want to be the morality police. Do you really want that? What if you like drinking a beer while watching football (nothing against football), but the morality police decide alcohol is sinful? They lobby the mayor, the mayor (bending to the will of the vocal minority) bans beer. According to you, she’s just doing her job.

From what you’re saying, the guy who signs the pay checks makes the decisions. How is that different from a dictatorship? Contrary to what most people think, it’s usually not just a “librarian”, but a team of skilled library scientists who select a broad range of books on a broad range of topics. It’s not a rogue liberal activist trying to force gayness on our children – it’s a number of people buying books for a variety of reasons.

Personally, I say anything that isn’t solely of prurient interest (i.e. pornography) should be allowed in our libraries. That goes for the Bible, the communist manifesto, the Da Vinci Code (yes – even crappy, pop fiction), everything. People that don’t agree with communism don’t get to keep us from reading Marx, just as people that don’t agree with Christianity don’t get to keep me from reading the Bible. Of course, if you’re checking the Bible out at the *library*, that’s a whole other issue

Oct 10, 2008 - 12:13 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.