Read it again " Kilkenny said What we have here is Kilkenny being quoted. Find me the original 1996 Frontiersman article. Or any source which quote’s Palin directly. What you got is a Herald article which cites other articles (and Kilkenny) which cites a supposed original article. We have a third hand cite. No good.
There is no evidence whatsoever that she tried to ban books. There is some 3rd hand evidence that she inquired about the process.
"Stein says "* Stein is the previous Mayor, the one that Palin got voted out as she was voted in, and Palins avowed political opponent. if palin did this, she did not do so in any way where a record of it was kept- no minutes, no memos, no emails, nothing. Just a couple of many years old recollections by her political opponents. Stein is not an unbiased source, and even if he was he’s a second hand source here. So we’re talking about a biased sources recollection of something that he was told by another source that happened 12 years ago. Riiiiight.:dubious:
So you don’t have any source. I thought you said there were lots of them - how about one, at least?
I thought you had learned something from DrDeth rubbing your nose in the facts, but I underestimated the amazing power of denial.
But, if you don’t have a cite, that’s fine. I knew you didn’t, which is why I asked.
Regards,
Shodan
Except that the “firing” was a mass firing of all dept heads, who were all asked to resign. It occured as Palin took office, so Palin could not have asked about banning then fired anyone. Nor was there any public outcry. The local newspaper writing at that time said that Palin met with Emmons and they came to a compromise about combining depts, whereupon Palin backed off.
We have no direct evidence that Palin ever inquired about book banning, either. Maybe she did, but if so, her “firing” of Emmons was in no way connected to the inquiry. In fact it appears the inquiries occured after Palin had been in Office.
You can certainly call her a book banning supporter, enthusiast, or wannabe.
Time Magazine is a good enough source for me. The newspapers of the time printed it.
She herself admitted to having brought it up! She tried to hand-wave it away, saying she had only meant it “rhetorically” (though presumably she meant “offhandedly”), but the fact that even a single brain-cell in her head was devoted to library censorship doesn’t speak well of her.
Look, I’m not claiming that there’s iron-clad proof, but I’ve read every article and opinion and published report there is, and taking into account the sources, other facts about her early political life, her “Bible belt of Alaska” constituency, and professed social mores, I find it most likely that she actively asked about, and would have followed through on, removing books from the library. You disagree, and that’s cool, but since this isn’t a court of law, I feel justified in drawing a conclusion on the basis of (to me) convincing evidence.
Good thing I never said it was.
She might be a person who asked about them. Even that is unverified.
No, we have no direct cite of her even mentioning it. The sources that say that are biased sources working off their recollection of soemthing 12 years ago.
I’ll take the librarian at her word, thank you.
Everyone, on some level is guilty of having ideals that someone else might object to. The question is did she, the answer is no. End of story.
Directly from the piece in the New York Times:
“In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.””
That’s not a quote from someone. It’s not based off a “biased source.” It’s most likely that the author of the piece did his research and found real evidence that Sarah Palin did in fact say that to the local paper.
You may choose to believe that William Yardley of the NYT just made that up, or didn’t use due diligence in verifying it before printing it.
I choose to believe that that statement is accurate, unless someone equally credible has reported to the contrary.
That would be fine but we have no cite or quote from the librarian. We only have Kilkenny saying that’s what the Librarian said. Not the same thing.
In fact, dudes have tried to track down Emmons and get a cite from her and she has been unresponsive.
Did Yardley hear Palin say that? of course not. He appears to be quoting Kilkenny that made that claim. But if he has the original Frontiersman 1996 article, then I’d like to see it. No link to that article in his writing. Of course, even if Yardley read that Frontiersman article, then we’d have Yardley quoting a (unnamed?) reporter who supposedly quoted Palin. At best that’s 3rd hand. Worthless since both Palin and Emmons are still around… and Emmons apparently is refusing to respond. Note that no one has been able to find any minutes, meeting notes, emails, memos or anything from that time or those meetings that mention Palin inquiring about book bannings.
I agree it is possible that Palin made an offhand hypothetical inquiry. Even if so, it’s clear that Kilkenny is a big fat liar, as Emmons’ supposed firing is clearly not connected in any way shape or form with Palins’ supposed “rhetorical question” (it seems that the comment, could only have happened after the supposed firings, and the firings were of every dept head, and Emmons wasn’t even fired in the end).
Of course, I am slightly amused with Palin getting “Rhetorical” and “hypothetical” confused, if indeed she made that comment.
“So if I were the mayor… which I am… and I wanted to go about banning some books… which I do… how exactly would I go about that process, speaking completely theoretically, of course?”
Hey, that’s how I found out about making someone disappear and then collecting their insurance money. Hypothetically.
If that was the wording, phasing and tone, it’d be pretty damning, no doubt.
How about “I have heard a lot of talk about book bannings and I am against the idea. How would people go about trying to do such a horrendous
act?”:p:D
You make some odd assumptions. Don’t you think it’s likely that Yardley actually talked to someone at the Frontiersman, and/or read the issue in question? And if he did, he’d report it exactly as he did in the NYT – every statement in a newspaper article doesn’t need to come with its own specific link for proof. That would be absurd. Similarly, why on Earth would there be any “minutes, meeting notes, emails, memos or anything from that time or those meetings,” regarding few questions she posed to a librarian, or a comment she made to a newspaper? If I ask you what you had for breakfast this morning, should I only believe you if you also show me the press release and the minutes from your breakfast table?
Sure, I’d feel better about the evidence if someone provided a scan of the 1996 Frontiersman, but I still feel good about the evidence from the NYT. As for Emmons not responding: given the well-documented fates of those who cross Palin’s path, I might not respond either. What good would it do her?