> She may have not formally instigated a process into banning books, but that doesn't mean that when she spoke to Ms Baker (the Wasillan librarian at the time) about how she should go about getting books banned
That's not what she asked. Moreover, why should librarians be the last word on book selection? (Librarians are political creatures too.)
> and then threatening to fire her for not having full support that it wasn't an issue.
Palin fired the librarian for supporting a political rival.
> Moreover, why should librarians be the last word on book selection? (Librarians are political creatures too.)
Realistically, for a country who holds some core ideologies such as the freedom of speech and the seperation of church and state, having a politician want to ban books because of religious views supports neither of these ideologies.
The reprinted article was removed from the Frontiersman website (the newspaper that ran the original story in 1996) but Google's cache still has it here.
> Palin fired the librarian for supporting a political rival.
The point isn't that she fired the librarian for supporting a political rival, the point is that this woman has views that could be considered ... damn whats the word I'm looking for... it's like counterproductive. Non-progressive would be a good fit, but its not the word I'm looking for.
> Realistically, for a country who holds some core ideologies such as the freedom of speech
Which doesn't apply here, because there's no right to govt sponsored speech.
> and the seperation of church and state, having a politician want to ban books because of religious views supports neither of these ideologies.
Palin didn't try to get books taken out of the library, let alone ban them.
There's no "right" to the govt buying certain books. Libraries refuse to buy books every day. They refuse to accept book donations every day. They take books off the shelves every day.
Do you really think that a community can be forced to pay for a library that doesn't do as the community wants?
> The point isn't that she fired the librarian for supporting a political rival, the point is that this woman has views that could be considered
How about arguing against those views honestly instead of making up bogus charges?
having a politician want to ban books because of religious views supports neither of these ideologies.
I'm not sure how you go from Palin asking about banning books to the assumption that she wanted to ban books, and for specifically religious reasons. Why do you not assume that she heard complaints about books from her constituents, and wanted to know in advance what would happen if they actively wanted to ban books, and the librarian didn't?
That's not what she asked. Moreover, why should librarians be the last word on book selection? (Librarians are political creatures too.)
> and then threatening to fire her for not having full support that it wasn't an issue.
Palin fired the librarian for supporting a political rival.
Politics isn't bean bag.