"In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia."
George Orwell

I have never heard of a politically appointed librarian position before.

What she did is scary. It makes me wonder what other future infringements she has up her sleeve.

She didn't try to get books banned, she asked how the Librarian would react. I have been in Job interviews with seven or eight people who were intentionally trying to make me angry to see how I would react. It's called a confrontational interview and it's used in many high stress jobs. The librarian already had her job, so maybe, just maybe Sarah Palin was using confrontational interview techniques to determine if she should allow the librarian to keep her job? You know, like Sarah Palin has said she did? And maybe since this happened 16 years ago and Sarah Palin didn't try to ban books at all during that time, it's a non-issue?

If my boss asked me to do something which went against my principles, I would explain to my boss why it wasn't a good idea. I wouldn't outright refuse, although I would be opposed to the idea, it's my boss, remember? Maybe Sarah wanted someone who would work with her rather than someone who would outright oppose her orders? Someone who would explain why something shouldn't be done rather than outright refuse? I don't know if this is true, but what I do know is this:

1) This happened 16 years ago.
2) No books were ever banned.
3) The question was (and I quote) "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?"
4) Sarah claims it was a loyalty test.

Why shouldn't we believe Sarah when the facts support her claim?

I guess asking you to not flame was just too much.

Not true, the question was quoted already a couple times in this thread.

"What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?"

I was in a job interview where I was asked "Why do you say here you can't start for one and a half months?" I responded "My boss has cancer and is too sick to work while she's in chemo, so I have to cover for her until she's back in the office." and the interviewer said "So I'm supposed to believe that you are SOOOOO important that the company would fall apart without you?" His intention was to see if I would get angry, it was an interview for a high stress position. Like I have said a couple times, maybe Sarah Palin was doing something similar to test how HER EMPLOYEE (the Librarian) would react? She says that's what she was doing, I haven't seen a single argument from any of you as to why that can't be true.

oh sweet molasses
holy cow batman

this is all false people, she did not ban any books; recommend any books to be banned.



like most things said, it was taken out of context and elaborated on - why expect this to be true or beneficial?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

In December 1996, [city librarian Mary Ellen] Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in; about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.

When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there.

Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name.

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said.

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'"

Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said.

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

According to that same article, no evidence has been uncovered that any books were actually censored or removed from Wasilla's library as a result of these discussions:

Were any books censored [or] banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files and came up empty-handed.

Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.

Not sure why you felt 'flamed' by that post.

And you did make a judgement call when you said 'I think'. But that's what this thread and forum are about.

And I'm making a judgement call too. She already stated that she had been asked to look into it (what it would take to get books out of the library). That's not a loyalty test. I think she was testing the waters. And if she was doing that, which I do believe, then I think it's a scary thing.

Asking her 3 different times implies, to me, an intent to do so.

NO LOYALTY TESTS FOR LIBRARIANS

Dont agree, either she's stupid, wasnt paying attention, expected a different answer each time, didnt understand the responses I can go on and on... however, intent was not proven other things were like she's not much of a multi-tasker or listener, but intent was not proven nor has any action been taken since.

(edited, how rude of me, hiya tngxl )

She tried to fire the librarian for objecting but the town rose up against her and the librarian got to keep her job.

Sincerely, always a pleasure Fran.

Even if I were to believe it might be any of those other possibilities, which I don't, they don't paint her very well either. And again, we're all making judgements. We have to. I believe she had intent.

I don't agree that it's a non-issue.

I am very concerned that the thoughts of book banning were even in her head.

just my opinion, which is worth nil to those who disagree/agree

The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go. hence no proof - to me

All speculation in my eyes, the loyalty testing was hilarious to say the least.

My point people take a story, especially someone in the public eye, and twist and turn it until they begin to believe the lies and no longer recognize the truth.

I am not promoting neither McCain/Palin nor Obama/Biden - just saying, take complete information when drawing a conclusion.

just my opinion

Hey I have the intent to win lotto, I play it daily (just kidding)

REPUBLICANS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (book banning or not. bunch of over-controlling, big business loving, war-mongering, starched collar fakers)

are you really picturing me naked ?????

This topic isn't as simple as "Should Sarah Palin give the librarian a loyalty test or just fire her", is it?

It's a bit more complicated than that.

I didn't make a judgement call on:
1) If she was right to give the loyalty test.
2) If she was right to fire the librarian
3) If banning books is right

Notice that in the sentence where I said "I think" that I only offered two possibilities "Fire the Librarian or Loyalty test". I picked the lesser of the two.

As far as me feeling flamed, well making a strawman fallacy and posting "Who are you kidding?" and "The better choice would be to LEAVE OUR PUBLIC LIBRARIES ALONE." that's flaming. What criteria would you use to judge a flaming post?

yes

Well that was insightful and contributed much to the conversation.

Feel free to start a Republicans Suck thread. This one was going fairly well.

woohooo, member got it off their chest woohoo

dontcha feel betta now?