Hate comes out of the closet

The place for measured discourse about politics and current events, including developments in science and medicine.
Post Reply
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

solicitr wrote:
The raising of the issue of books in the Wasilla library was not that she had banned books, but that she had taken the first steps (as Voronwë's report indicates) to find out HOW to ban books.
That is simply incorrect, although various Palin opponents carefully phrased accounts of the affair to give that impression

If you examine the City Council minutes, it becomes clear that Palin asked Emmons how the librarian would respond to demonstrators outside the library demanding that a title be banned. Emmons responded that she would ignore them, or call the police if a breach of the peace seemed likely. That was it. Nothing more, and certainly nothing to support the image of "Palin the kook-Christian book-burner."
Has anyone here called her that, soli?
In December 1996, 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.

Emmons told the Frontiersman she flatly refused to consider censorship. . . .

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.

"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.

At the time Palin called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion, according to the Frontiersman article.

Were any books banned? June Pinnell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files last week and came up empty-handed.
Link
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

I suppose the meaning of the incident is pretty open to interpretation. Objectively, Palins' just asking a librarian her stance on censorship. Nothing intrinsically insidious about that. But sometimes being objective is boring and I say it still creeps me out. :P
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

I posted that just to make clear that some people who were there did not think Palin was merely asking a procedural question. Obviously some people's red flags went up, including the librarian herself.

But Palin should not be criticized for something she didn't do, and in this case the record is clear: she never asked for any books to be removed.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Mind you, Prim, that Anne Kilkenny has been an ardent Palin foe since she moved to Wassila- not exactly an unbiased source.

What is characteristic of Palin's terms as mayor and governor has been a decided lack of action on the Christian Right agenda. But that didn't stop the Kossacks from depicting her as the new Cotton Mather.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

Yes, they went overboard. Though I don't think one can argue that her beliefs had no influence on her agenda or on her attitude toward some ongoing policies in Wasilla.

But it's pointless and potentially mean-spirited to pick on her now.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46575
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

soli wrote:What is characteristic of Palin's terms as mayor and governor has been a decided lack of action on the Christian Right agenda. But that didn't stop the Kossacks from depicting her as the new Cotton Mather.
So far as I know that is largely true about her record. But the fact of the matter is that it is right-wing portion of the GOP that embraced her as their champion, and her rhetoric certainly fed that. She very much embraced being a champion of the culture wars, particularly when she tried to paint Obama as being a radical abortion rights activist who advocated killing babies (see, for instance, this article in Time Magazine).

But I certainly agree with both you and Prim that the left-wing blogs went way overboard (I presume that "Kossacks" refers to the Daily Kos? I had never heard that before), and even more that there is no sense in continuing to attack her now.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Post by sauronsfinger »

from Solicitr
What is characteristic of Palin's terms as mayor and governor has been a decided lack of action on the Christian Right agenda. But that didn't stop the Kossacks from depicting her as the new Cotton Mather.
The thing that decided it for me was the morning her name was leaked as McCain's VP selection, I went to Wikpedia and read her bio. I remarked minutes later to someone that it read like the script for a Frank Capra movie. I thought she was either one truly amazing person or this was simply too good to be true.

Over the next 48 hours, her actual true record- a far more complete record - came out. The contrast between the wikipedia entry of Palin and the reality of Palin was jarring and unsettling.

Within days we found out why. The 48 hours before her name was leaked, several people went into the wikipedia bio and drastically rewrote it. It read like a Frank Capra script because that was the intention of the Republican political operatives who rewrote it to sound exactly that way. If we want to throw bricks at at a lack of objectivity, we can start with that crew. In fact, when others attempted to put back missing information or add other information after her announcement,a huge back and froth rewriting donnybrook erupted and wikipedia froze the page for a period of time and would not allow anyone to make changes.

We were being sold a bill of goods that was a very attractive package with something very different actually inside. We were getting the worst possible combination of Republican Party characteristics - a small government libertarian and a social issues conservative.

The whole librarian situation was just part of that. A bigger part of that for me was what I saw as terrible decisions as governor of her state on behalf of the people of Alaska. Palin was elected on a plank of protecting the public through public safety programs and taking on a host of other problems that she cited in the campaign. Any check of where Alaska stands compared to other states on problem like crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, unemployment and education completion shows that they have many serious problems.

Other governors can claim that in this time of decreasing state budgets, there is not much they can do. Not true for Governor Palin. The State of Alaska is reaping billions of dollars in royalties and taxes from Big Oil in their state. There is no lack of revenue to tackle the problems she pledge to attack. Instead, she adopted the philosophy of the small government crowd and decided to simply give the money of Big Oil directly to the people of Alaska in a huge socialistic income redistribution scheme.

I see that as a perfect example of failure of leadership.

That is what did it for me.

Charles Gibsons interview, Katie Courics interview, the endless run-on sentences, the obvious lack of knowledge on many vital issues, the emerging pattern of getting all you can at the expense of others, the $150 thousand from fancy department stores, the demagougic speeches at the rallies, the refusal to answer questions during the debate .... all that and more just confirmed the conclusion I came to after week one of Sarah Palin.

And I have not seen one thing to tell me I misjudged her.
Last edited by sauronsfinger on Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46575
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Let's see, the last three posts of this thread consist of: (1) Prim saying about Sarah Palin that it is "pointless and potentially mean-spirited to pick on her now; (2) me saying "there is no sense in continuing to attack her now"; and then (3) sf going on a long diatribe attacking Sarah Palin.

What does that say?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Post by sauronsfinger »

I think it says that this was pretty much a dead and forgotten issue until some attempted to defend Palin. For some reason, Solicitr seems to want to discuss many of the events of the election that he was not here to engage in as they actually happened. Action elicits the corresponding reaction.

I am happy to leave this behind and look forward. I would much rather have a good discussion about what happens now - both in the Obama administration and with the GOP as the loyal opposition.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46575
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

I agree with that it would be nice to move on, and I hope we do so. But it is easy for you to say that when your last anti-Palin diatribe is the last word. I can only hope that people realize the futility of responding to you so that we really can move on.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

I don't think it's a dead topic and I also don't think sauronsfinger is posting mere "diatribes" about Sarah Palin.

However, I think the "topic" is not so much Sarah Palin as what she represents and how much that will affect the future of American politics.

Palin's supporters no doubt feel "disenfranchised". They LOST something, and it wasn't just the election. They lost nearly the last certainty they had that they "matter" to America - I think they realize they are a minority now. I think that was a shock. They aren't "the real America" any more - the "real America" is urban and mostly "liberal".

What worries me is that if the economy continues to get worse - and I think it will - and if it doesn't get substantially better by, say, 2011 or so, the last months of Obama's first term, that there will be a resurgence and growth in the kind of politics Palin represents. Not "hate", I don't mean that all her supporters are "hateful" or "racist", but that Obama's presidency will be seen as a failure and by then, given the short memories people keep demonstrating, suddenly the Bush years will be seen through rose-coloured glasses and there will be a shift "rightward" again.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

John Kerry '04: 48.3%

Barack Obam '98: 52.8%

That's a net swing of 4.5 percentage points. So is America now "mostly liberal?" Or is it the case that a very small handful of voters in the middle got sick of George Bush?

It would be entirely fair, Vison, if the Democrats get the blame for the economy: it's their mess, after all. What was unfair (but typical) was Bush and the Republicans getting the blame for the detonation of a financial time-bomb left behind by the Cinton administration.

There's no question that the rural population is shrinkning and with it rural 'values.' But that hardly means we're all Europeans now. According to the Tarrance/Battleground poll in September, respondents self-identified themselves as:

Very conservative 18%
Somewhat conservative 41%
Somewhat liberal 29%
Very liberal 7%

http://www.tarrance.com/files/Battlegro ... nnaire.pdf

I suspect you'll find that if the Obama administration and/or the Democratic congress attempt to go very far to the left there will be an enormous backlash- a lot of it from Obama voters who did so believing him to be a moderate.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

soli, have you looked at other surveys that go beyond self-labels to ask what voters actually believe?

There are some people out there who consider themselves conservative who hold surprisingly liberal views on abortion rights, the Iraq war, taxes, and other major issues. The labels are slipping, probably in part because "liberal" has been used pejoratively so much. "I'm no liberal, but. . . ."

The proof of that, if it is true, should emerge pretty early in the Obama administration, because he will be taking some big steps on the economy from his first day in office. If people want the budget balanced instead à la Hoover, we will see Obama's numbers plummet.

Also, in looking at the swing in elections, it's usual to consider the change in the margin between the candidates, not in the percent of votes one candidate got; that is the "net swing." Bush won in 2004 by 2.47%; McCain lost in 2008 by 6.91%. That is a swing of 9.38%, not about half that as you said.
Last edited by Primula Baggins on Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
ToshoftheWuffingas
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm

Post by ToshoftheWuffingas »

So, is this right? If the Right win an election by a hair's breadth they are entitled to enact a Right agenda but if the Left wins by a larger margin they mustn't do the same.
How does that work?
<a><img></a>
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

It works for some on the right, anyway. 2004 (2.47% popular vote margin, electoral votes 286-251) was a mandate for George Bush; he said so himself. Therefore, 2008 (6.91% popular vote margin, electoral votes 365-173) must be a squeaker win for Obama.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Prim: you know, I have now spent rather a lot of time pursuing your claim that "the Secret Service is investigating Sarah Palin." Apparently no such allegation is to be found- except at TruthOut and other left-wing sites. In particular, the 'wire sources' from which the Salem, OR Statesman-Journal's (unsigned) piece supposedly got its story carry nothing of the sort. AP and Reuters merely cover SS investigations of death threats by individual kooks. Googling key phrases such as "agents say is responsible for provoking a spike in death threats" come up blank- except for the slimier sort of partisan blogs.

I have the disturbing feeling that, not wanting to attribute this nonsense to the left-wing smear community which originated it, you attempted to disguise the source by finding one obscure dead-tree publication- "the mid-valley's number one source for local news"- as a way to give it undeserved legitimacy.

After all, it's legally preposterous if you think about it.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

Sorry, it's a paper near where I live. I'm surprised they would print something unsourced; they aren't a rag. (My grandparents read the Statesman-Journal all their lives; my aunt and uncle in their late seventies still do.) However, if you can't find a source, that's what they appear to have done, and I certainly withdraw the suggestion.
Last edited by Primula Baggins on Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Tosh, the American political reality is that the new Head of Government doesn't get five years and a guaranteed legislative majority to work his will. The electorate gets another say in 2010- and, as you may remember, Clinton's overreaching in his first two years led to a Republican takeover of Congress.


I would observe- here's the key point in all this- 78% of Americans do not believe that the government should redistribute wealth. That's a political Rubicon Obama crosses at his peril. And if energy costs spike again, the Democrats are going to find themselves a beleaguered minority in their opposition to increased domestic production: Americans by two to one favor drilling.

Of course, I would also suggest that it takes a much, much bigger electoral mandate to justify doing the Wrong Thing. :D
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

"Redistribute wealth" is a pretty carefully chosen phrase, one that was a specific anti-Obama talking point and campaign message for McCain. I'd be suspicious of a poll that used that phrase in a question (as I would be of a poll that used left-wing hyperbole). Link?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Ellienor
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: River trippin'

Post by Ellienor »

78% of Americans do not believe that the government should redistribute wealth
Well, it seems to be that many Americans were quite against redistributing their own wealth to the financial sector to pull their fat out of the fire.

This is why the "redistributionist in chief" snark didn't work during the election. People saw that Republicans were willing to give heaps of taxpayer money to the financial sector.

It would be entirely fair, Vison, if the Democrats get the blame for the economy: it's their mess, after all. What was unfair (but typical) was Bush and the Republicans getting the blame for the detonation of a financial time-bomb left behind by the Cinton administration.
Sure Clinton signed the Glass-Steagal act, as a lame duck President with a hostile Republican Congress; but the basic ideas of deregulation and trusting the markets is straight from the Republican brain trust.
Post Reply