Comments on: PFLAG claims Palin singled out a pro-gay book to remove

By: Legolas

Legolas — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:57:03 +0000

Karen,
Probably because such an explanation also strains credulity. If Palin were checking to make sure the librarian wouldn’t cave to censorship, I’m pretty sure she would have offered some sort of reassurances to the librarian after the fact. I’m also pretty sure she would have asked about the “balanced presentation of views” currently present on her topic of interest, and unless I’m mistaken I don’t there’s any evidence she did so. I’m also pretty sure the McCain campaign would have trotted out your explanation pretty quickly, since “Palin is a defender of first amendment rights, even if she has to butt heads with her childhood church” is a pretty good campaign soundbite to reassure moderate voters, to say the least.

By: Karen Booth

Karen Booth — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:31:08 +0000

Timothy, on what basis do you theorize Governor Palin’s motives?
While I totally agree with my national and local church’s stance on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, I am also a proponent of first amendment rights. Had I been in Palin’s position, and knowing that there had been some sort of local flap between a pro-gay religious author and local bookstores, I would want to know whether or not the librarian could be influenced by pressure. I would also want to know if there was a balanced representation of views on the shelves.
Isn’t it even a remote possibility that Palin might have been thinking along similar lines? Why do you default to the stereotype that the media is painting of her?

By: Legolas

Legolas — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:51:07 +0000

Timothy,
The reason I asked the question is that I keep seeing people say that she was “asking rhetorically” – repeating the misuse of the language apparently unthinkingly, and (to me) accepting the implication that if it’s just “rhetorical” that makes it OK or at least better. Warren appears to have done something along these lines just above, whether he intended to or not. As you say, the notion that someone would ask theoretical questions about book censorship strains credulity. Therefore, why accept or repeat her words? I don’t think banning books is the embodiment of evil, but I’d say most people really dislike the idea of banning books, and hopefully at least as many people would dislike the idea that someone was being dishonest about their willingness to ban books. Therefore, why buy into the spin in any way, form, or fashion?
I suppose you might say my questions were rhetorical. 🙂

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:06:35 +0000

Legolas,
The term “rhetorically” was used incorrectly. What Palin undoubtedly meant was “theoretically”.
While it is a misuse of language, I don’t think it was intended to deceive nor did anyone (other than yourself) misunderstand what she meant.
Whether you believe her is, of course, another issue. Frankly, I find the notion of asking theoretical questions about book censorship to be straining credulity.
Most likely Palin wished to remove some books because her church thought they were bad and wanted to know if it would be an issue. She was told several times that this wasn’t going to be done just because she asked so she dropped it.
Some folks will find that to be the very embodiment of evil (mostly those who are predisposed to find anything about Republicans to be evil) and others won’t. I’m disappointed that she’s now trying to spin it as all just theory (or rhetoric). I’d rather that she was upfront about it.

By: Legolas

Legolas — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:20:45 +0000

What exactly does it mean to ask about the possibility of banning books “rhetorically?” Can you explain that one for me?