Okay, just one more thought about Sarah Palin. According to TIME magazine, former Wasilla mayor John Stein said, "[Palin] asked the library how she could go about banning books. The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor. This book-banning thing is worrisome.
But why? What's the problem with banning books?
Well, the obvious answer is that we should be able to decide for ourselves what we should or shouldn't read. Politicians like Sarah Palin should not be deciding what books we have access to.
Often books are banned because they present a view of the world that is "abnormal" in some way. Some of last year's controversial children's books include one about a child whose father is in prison, another about a schizophrenic homeless woman, another that has the word "scrotum" (in a description of a dog).
The article "The Outsiders: Kids need controversial books like The Higher Power of Lucky," by Lisa Carver during the "scrotum" scandal, eloquently explains why it's such hubris to assume that just by having only books about "normal" families, you'll bring such a thing about. No matter where or how you grow up, you face complicated situations, confusing questions and powerful feelings and a book that acknowledges some part of your experience can make you feel less alone. She writes:
Not mentioning in children's books so-called controversial subjects (they're not, really; they're just life) in order to protect children is the same as how, in the 50s, blacks or Jews or single parents weren't part of stories. Not because they didn't exist back then, but because everyone somehow tacitly agreed to pretend they didn't. There is no Other. There's just us, and we're a motley crew.
We still don't know what books Palin wanted off the shelves, but it's nerve-wracking that she thought she should have the power to choose whose voices could be heard.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 6)
61. Califgrl...
How about our schools teaching islam as well? Are you willing to put your tax dollars to teaching and spreading islam?
Mandatory prayer 5 times a day? Burquas as a school dress code?
The sheer blindness of your post shows your lack of vision. This isn't an attack on anything other than your incredibly short sighted opinion.
The bible can be in a library. It's a book. Teaching that it's the "truth" is a completely different story. Just as you take offense to teaching Islam in schools, we take offense to your wanting to push your religion.
ex-christian at 8:23AM on Sep 15th 2008
62. Look at the financial news this morning. We're in CRISIS like we've never seen in this country since the Great Depression. These idiots, ( she's amongst the few who don't think Global Warming is "man-made" and she wanted to charge rape victims for their hospital exam, believes in burning books, no abortion for rape and incest victims, book-burning) are KILLING AMERICA! We do have to vote for the Obama/Biden ticket, I think.
M Dooley at 8:25AM on Sep 15th 2008
63. Oh and "Creation Science" is decidedly NOT Science! No evidence, no scientific study --- NOT SCIENCE. I'm a Christian but not a dumb one.
Merbs at 8:29AM on Sep 15th 2008
64. "Another thing, meth wasn't an issue 20 years ago. No one even knew much about it outside of Asia."
I don't know how old you are Diane, but you couldn't be more wrong with this statement. Meth has been devestating lives in this country since the early 70's. I saw it firsthand in Texas back then. It was an epidemic back then that subsided for about a decade and returned in the 90's.
And for the record, I am an Obama supporter...
Wiseblood at 9:38AM on Sep 16th 2008
65. In public libraries, parents can easily monitor books and avoid those deemed unacceptable. I don't believe in banning books, but I do believe that parents have the right to determine what books are read by their child. . The problem in public schools is a definite liberal, secular agenda. Propaganda under the guise of books is a popular method of circumventing parental moral/ethical instruction. Books like, “Heather has Two Mommies” are offensive to religious beliefs and should not be read without consulting parents first. Parents have the right to opt their child out of reading those types of books and should be offered an alternative.
janesophie1 at 9:32AM on Sep 15th 2008
66. ED: There have been occasional attempts by individuals to remove Harris and Twain books since the 1960s, not supported by the way by "liberal" ACLU; however, a check of several library websites throughout southeastern Michigan where I live, show books by both authors on the shelves or checked out to the public. I'll have my sister-in-law in South Carolina make a similar search.
ChasB at 10:28AM on Sep 15th 2008
67. the dilemma of school-reading, as in janesopie's post, is different than banning books from a public library, or even asking them to be removed. I'm a parent that felt my children could benefit from a wider world view, so I wasn't afraid of what my kids were reading. Neither the school nor any of the libraries ever sent my kids home with a book I felt was inappropriate. Now the movies I had to block from my kids until they were a bit older is a different story........but I was the one doing the guardianship.
Janesophie...what is your problem with the book you mentioned? I'm truly interested, because I imagine the problem is real for you and others like you, and that would be tough. However, your kids probably see "two mommies" at school, so how do you explain that to them?
abbot at 10:14AM on Sep 15th 2008
68. To begin with let me clarify that I do not lay claim to being democrat or republican.
Whether you like it or not the history of the government in this country shows that they have forever used divide & conquer as the way to reach they're goals of power. From the earliest times with the native tribes to the more current religuous factions that exist today, as well as the polical parties.
Wake-up people if we do not stop the abuses of power by all elected officials we will soon be no better than the people in Russia or China. Niether side in this election have offered us any hope, but I do believe electing McCain will be the worst of two evils. If we let them turn us against each other they will have what they want. Forget about your religions and party loyalty for once and stand together so we can take back this country. I for one do not want the government involved in my personal decisions any more.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
sickofitall at 10:25AM on Sep 15th 2008
69. I read that Palin didn't want a book featuring gay fathers. I think it was in the NY Times on Saturday.
QueenJuliana at 10:48AM on Sep 15th 2008
70. While I find the idea of banning books for adults repugnant, let me say that I can understand if parents feel that it should be up to them to decide when and how to discuss certain subjects with their child. While the book, "Heather Has Two Mommies" has great intentions, making it available in the children's section of the library opens the door for a child to be introduced to certain ideas possibly before their parent would like them to.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 11:36AM on Sep 15th 2008
71. Censoring the Public library!
What's next the internet? Our vocabulary? Our lives?
Charity at 11:54AM on Sep 15th 2008
72. "Janesophie...what is your problem with the book you mentioned? I'm truly interested, because I imagine the problem is real for you and others like you, and that would be tough. However, your kids probably see "two mommies" at school, so how do you explain that to them?"
abbot,
I object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds. I believe it is sinful and immoral. Children should not be indoctrinated into accepting it as normal. If I should be blessed with children someday, I would educate them within my world view. They would know that we are to love all people, but oppose any behavior that contradicts the word of God.
* My view on this subject is non-negotiable. I say this in advance to avoid a futile debate.
janesophie1 at 11:44AM on Sep 15th 2008
73. I agree that you should be able to read what you want, which is why you should buy it with YOUR money, and not get it free at the public library courtesy of taxpayers. This article is stupid. Saying that removing inappropriate material from libraries is censorship is like saying that if the government stops giving away birth control and condoms they are taking away poor women's right to have sex. As a poor woman, I think if you can't afford the stuff then that should be a hint to you that your priorities are in the wrong place and you need to get a job so you can cease being poor. But I digress. It's the liberals who are always saying we need to protect children and that they shouldn't see sex on tv, but these same people say we should be okay with them having it. Now they're saying what's wrong with letting them read about it. Plenty! I am 18 and a sophomore in college working on an English and a Spanish degree. Kids don't need to read about sex; they have enough distractions from important things (like school). If you want to read trash, BUY IT YOUR DAMNED SELF!
Gintrelle at 1:39PM on Sep 15th 2008
74. None of this is even completely true. Real censorship was when Obama had Bernie Mac at one of his events and when "feminists" (who hurt women more than they help us) didn't like his act, Obama told him he needed to "clean it up." How is that for pretending? Some women are whores; some women are bitches. This is the future of free speech in America in a Barack Obama presidency. Any time you disagree with a black person, you will be racist. Any time you point out the sick things some women do for money or fame, you are sexist. Say goodbye to free speech. You better say all the racist, sexist things you want, because in January they'll be policing the blogs. Don't be surprised if conservative talk radio ends and if no one ever says anything negative about anything he does, no matter how Marxist or immoral (letting babies die). Everyone will be afraid. And if he loses? There will come time like no time before. The night sky will shine brightly with the lights of police cars as blacks riot in the streets, lazy blacks who need the government to give them things paid for courtesy of your tax dollars (evil, rich, white people who pay the taxes that fund welfare, food stamps, and medicaid that we are on) because they refuse to take advantage of the opportunities in this great country that Mexicans are breaking the law to get. I am a young black woman. I am in college, and I have a job. I don't want socialized anything. I am on medicaid now, and it is embarrassing. I'd like to say someday that I take care of myself, that the food in my refrigerator wasn't bought with 40% of your income. But that will be the future under Obama. Say, what happens if everyone decides to get on the socialism train? We will all be poor. "Greedy corporate America" will shut down because under all these preposterous taxes they cannot afford to operate (or they'll move to Indonesia like Nike), and we will lose more jobs, which will mean more people getting government assistance, which will mean more tax hikes on "the rich?" (because you need money to turn into food stamps for people who won't make good grades and go to college and for medicaid for the children of women who are more concerned with having a man around than being financially stable), and the rich will get tired, and will realize that they are evil, so they'll stop working, too because being rich isn't important, as long as you're happy (my mom is very happy with her new dress and red shoes but I had to help pay the cable bill and she is on food stamps. Thank you evil rich people for paying taxes. Without them where would I, and most of my family and friends, be?). People will only let you take their hard-earned money for so long, to give it to people who didn't work for it. Welcome to the new France. Obama-Biden '08. Better enjoy this free speech while you can, before the pc police show up!
Gintrelle at 1:40PM on Sep 15th 2008
75. I object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds. I believe it is sinful and immoral. Children should not be indoctrinated into accepting it as normal. If I should be blessed with children someday, I would educate them within my world view. They would know that we are to love all people, but oppose any behavior that contradicts the word of God.
* My view on this subject is non-negotiable. I say this in advance to avoid a futile debate.
janesophie1 at 11:44AM on Sep 15th 2008
-------------------------------------
just because you have the right to an opinion does not make your opinion right.
you say children should not be indoctrinated into accepting homosexuality as normal. i find that humorous because you think they should be indoctrinated into thinking homosexuals are somehow lesser human beings, or depraved.
so what's worse? thinking of someone as an equal human being who deserves the same rights and respect as the rest of us or looking down on someone and judging them because they have a different sexual orientation which is no choice of their own?
Richelle at 3:40PM on Sep 15th 2008