Republican VP Choice Sarah Palin Tried to Ban Books
Republican VP Choice Sarah Palin Tried to Ban Books
September 3, 2008
While we've yet to hear of any connection between Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin and video games, the New York Times reports that she explored a book banning campaign as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska in the late 1990's:
Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through...
Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.
The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support...
Politico offers this on Palin's book banning attempt:
According to the Frontiersman newspaper, Wasilla’s library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, said that Palin asked her outright if she "could live with censorship of library books.” Palin later dismissed the conversation as a “rhetorical” exercise.
Time has more:
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "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.
GP: If Sarah Palin would ban books, would she also ban video games? It's certainly a valid question.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:45pm
HilaryDuffGta: "libel" what did he threaten now?
HilaryDuffGta: "libel" what did he threaten now?
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:44pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Was fun to be threatened for "libel" again.
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Was fun to be threatened for "libel" again.
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:26pm
HilaryDuffGta: hey so what did i miss??? the usual spam of "crap"
HilaryDuffGta: hey so what did i miss??? the usual spam of "crap"
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:15pm
FlakAttack: Jack ruined his chance to have civil debates with us here. Glad you banned him (again).
FlakAttack: Jack ruined his chance to have civil debates with us here. Glad you banned him (again).
Posted 07/03/09 at 04:04pm
Krono: Unexpected is probably the best word to describe it. Particularly as no decent reason is given.
Krono: Unexpected is probably the best word to describe it. Particularly as no decent reason is given.
Posted 07/03/09 at 03:59pm
GoodRobotUs: Just heard about that myself... kinda unexpected
GoodRobotUs: Just heard about that myself... kinda unexpected
Posted 07/03/09 at 03:58pm
Krono: Huh, apparently Sarah Palin is resigning.
Krono: Huh, apparently Sarah Palin is resigning.
Posted 07/03/09 at 03:34pm
GoodRobotUs: Sounds like he's been mainlining the Angel Dust again
GoodRobotUs: Sounds like he's been mainlining the Angel Dust again
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:50pm
ezbiker555: I'm back. Just in time too, my Jack Thompson sense were going wild
ezbiker555: I'm back. Just in time too, my Jack Thompson sense were going wild
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:47pm
DarkSaber: You mean "playing with himself"? :-P
DarkSaber: You mean "playing with himself"? :-P
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:16pm
Matthew: Oh, Jack's back? I guess he got bored of playing single-player.
Matthew: Oh, Jack's back? I guess he got bored of playing single-player.
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:05pm
Andrew Eisen: I'm leaving most of his comments up but he'll be banned again shortly.
Andrew Eisen: I'm leaving most of his comments up but he'll be banned again shortly.
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:03pm
PHX Corp: So the jackhole finally got through to attack us again
PHX Corp: So the jackhole finally got through to attack us again
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:03pm
Andrew Eisen: I deleted all of JT's off topic stuff.
Andrew Eisen: I deleted all of JT's off topic stuff.
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:00pm
PHX Corp: He also has more BS Law suits agains the florida bar
PHX Corp: He also has more BS Law suits agains the florida bar
Posted 07/03/09 at 12:47pm
DarkSaber: Yep, for once it's a GENUINE Jack Attack.
DarkSaber: Yep, for once it's a GENUINE Jack Attack.
Posted 07/03/09 at 12:29pm
Kincyr: hey Dennis, Jack's comment on the LBP article is redundant to a comment in the Eagle Forum articleand a comment in the SGC09 article. Shouldn't duplicate spam be removed?
Kincyr: hey Dennis, Jack's comment on the LBP article is redundant to a comment in the Eagle Forum articleand a comment in the SGC09 article. Shouldn't duplicate spam be removed?
Posted 07/03/09 at 12:27pm
Kincyr: not the .htmaccess script that prevents redirects
Kincyr: not the .htmaccess script that prevents redirects
Posted 07/03/09 at 12:23pm
DarkSaber: Proxy bans are easily bypassed afaik.
DarkSaber: Proxy bans are easily bypassed afaik.
Posted 07/03/09 at 12:17pm
Kincyr: I meant the proxy ban
Kincyr: I meant the proxy ban
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I see GP not just as a videogame news site but more of a all around first amendment issues site. Videogames and books are equivalents as protected speech under the first amendment so any politician who is more than willing to ban books would probably have no issues with banning other types of entertainment as well. As far this goes, where the hell does she get off trying to ban books from a public library! This kind of behavior is just despicable and I'm glad GP informed me about it. I mean books? Who the hell tries to ban books anymore?
Learn to do your own homework. Just don't believe everything you read on the net and assume it is true.
Go to http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136.
Click on "City Documents - Recently Requested - Former Mayor Palin".
Then click on "Banned or Censured Books Response".
The left is beginning to get desperate and trying to punch any knee jerk button they can of those that do not do their own thinking and research. Also, make up your own mind about this......BTW, the PTA is a pretty powerful community organization all across this country. Sarah-cuda just graduated to jobs with much more responsibility.
SARAH PALIN'S EXPERIENCE:
Don't dismiss the fact that Sarah Palin is Commander of the Alaska National Guard-- consider this.
Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's and certainly by far exceeds Obama's.
She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counter terrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about.
According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.
She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.
Yes, she is used to keeping secrets....and apparently, telling lies. She never visited Ireland, as she claimed - her plane only briefly stopped to refuel. She didn't wave Congress away over the 'Bridge to Nowhere' until they refused to fund it after she had been originally for it. Senator Obama has had experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is on the Senate Committe for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. You need to check facts from several sources...I did. This is no time for a divisive person like Sarah Palin to be in power. Our country is already divided internally from all this bickering. If you think you are being fair, ask yourself honestly if you are listening to both sides and check facts. Be smart.
...Her exposure may rival Biden's? Are you kidding me? You are comparing 20 months of gubernatorial duties with well over 20 years foreign policy experience. Give me a break. It sounds like you are convincing yourself. 20 MONTHS as a governor, I remind you. And Russia? Some people will believe anything.
The librarian has recently said she can neither confirm nor deny the conversation about banning books. Maybe a rifle was in her face recently.
She was fired in the same month, but re-hired due to public outrage at your Sarah-cuda. Other witnesses remember hearing the "rhetorical" question.
I don't trust her with security, my rights, my body or my freedoms. She should not be in the game.
Looks like the right wing shills have been doing their Astroturf thing. What the "Anonymous" has posted is nearly word for word off the site: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/commanding-the.html If you look at the site you will see why it's not very credible.
The idea that that being governor of a state that has less people than Rhode Island automatically makes someone presidential material is bulliocks anyway. The49th Missle DefebceBatallion actually reports to Colonel Michael Yowell, commander of the 100th Missile Defense Brigade, based in Colorado. Palin has no command role.
Not so much, Censoring any media is related to censoring video games in that history is filled with attempts to censor media that they thought was "objectionable"... Books were hit once, and video games are currently having their time in the spot light.
Frankly, i think he position on book banning, especially the reason she gave for it, is very telling of where she would stand on video games. If she wants to ban books for having bad language then what chance does the likes of GTA have... i'm actually surprised she hasn't made more of an attempt... thought then again, it could be because she's only been governor for 2 years and thus didn't have enough time to get to attacking media.
Are you kidding? How is it a stretch to go from banning books to banning video games when one of the key talking points behind the video game censorship movement is that games are worse than books due to their interactivity?
Seriously, have you even been paying the slightest bit of attention over the last couple of years?
Egads?! Gamepolitics as a person may have some form of an opinion. Scandelous. And as for Palin, she apparently is against abortion, even to save the mothers life or in the case of rape, and wants to remove contraception from society.
Video games? THOSE BE THE DEVILS PLAYGROUND. Considering the above, and GP's article, I think McCain chose her to make things more interesting; kinda like when divers tie bloody bundles of fish to their appendages before swimming with sharks.
Let's not beat around the bush. McCain put her in because he KNOWS he's losing to Obama and wants to draw in on the female market of voters.
There's no other reason and anyone who disagrees is a fool.
But let's bring up some points for debate:
She's not experienced and until now, McCains debate was that he had experience. Gee, that wasn't working, and now he puts her up?
As for the first poster, your stupidity and ignorance managed to boggle my mind. As a non-productive member of deep internet culture, that's saying a lot.
"he KNOWS he's losing to Obama"
That's the funniest shit I've heard all day and I just watched Cloris Leachman portion of Bob Saget's roast. Obama's the one losing ground DAILY. He's also afraid of real debates (that's why there are so few and they're starting so late in the year). Take away the words put in his mouth, take away the teleprompter and the man is completely useless, without an original thought. "I'm for change", great slogan, too bad he's never followed it up with a solid plan. Even better, the words that DO come out of his mouth change weekly. Check out all the reports about how many times he and his website have hedged their bets by altering what's being said - sometimes subtly, sometimes greatly.
You might want to check a news source on that topic -- Obama losing ground -- that doesn't have 'FOX' at the beginning of it, skippy.
Let's dispell a myth shall we? Firstly, Democratic women are not flocking to the Republican ticket. What happened is that Hillary managed to win over a bunch of Republican women by garnering cross-party support. Now that she is not in the running, those Republican voters are returning to the McCain/Palin fold.
Also Obama doesnt need to "crush" her at all. Have you seen the polls? Let me show you. First of all let's start with the overall voting figures.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
These are the global US polls and they seem to show that Obama has a SLIGHT lead. Nothing major in the total voting figures. If it went to a vote today, he would win the popular vote by a small amount. But let's project this now across State by State and see how it fits in with the Electoral Votes...
http://www.pollster.com/
WHOA! Suddenly we see that Obama has a bunch more solid States, worth a considerable amount of Electoral Votes than McCain. Further more take a look at Texas. 50.3(R) vs 43.4(D)??? This is the Home State! It should be way better than this if McCain were a threat, I mean Obama's Home State of Illinois is 51.8(D) vs 36.8(R). Additionally, take a look at New Mexico. This is very odd for a Democrat to be picking up these central States.
Right now, McCain and the Republicans have to be worried. I am watching with great interest the polls after the Republican speeches to see if they are going to boost McCain's campaign.
PS: I do not hide that if I were an American citizen, I would vote Obama in a heartbeat. It is for this reason I am only dealing in facts and not in personal opinion. Yes you can argue that these polls have a margin for error, but they need to SIGNIFICANTLY change in the coming months if the Republicans are going to win.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!
McCain isn't from Texas, man. Don't put him on us, dammit. That guy is from Arizona.
Texas has our share of a-holes, but fortunately, he's not one of ours.
Wow, does "Anonymous" have ANY idea how irony soaked his idiotic comment is?
""I'm for change", great slogan, too bad he's never followed it up with a solid plan."
You mean like the entire Republican party DIDN'T during their entire convention?? They try to steal the "change agenda" and back it up with nothing at all! "We're the real agents of change! Take our word for it!"
Did you see Obama on the O'Reilly Factor? I thought he was amazing without the aid of a prepared speech or teleprompter. I just want to see a rule during the debates where McCain cannot mention the word "POW" and Palin cannot mention her kids and see what they have left to talk about...
Obama has been consistently leading in the polls since day one. While it is true that his lead began to slip between mid-July and mid-August, there is simply no accurate way of denying that McCain is losing to Obama. The amount of official debates in this election season is four, actually one more than the standard lot of three. Finally, Obama's policy positions are laid out in full detail on his website. You may dislike the fact that he doesn't spend much time on these specifics during speeches (like myself), but that does not change the fact that his policies are readily available to the public, and have been for well over a year now. If you do not know where Obama stands on almost any given issue, it is because you are being willfully ignorant.
And strike.
Palin has more executive experience than any of the others (McCain, Obama, Biden). Matter of fact: She has more more foreign relations experience too - Alaska shares no border with any other US state.
She has a trackrecord of dealing with big oil and corruption and winning.
Trying to attack Palin on experience is a move most stupid.
As for banning books - she tried to ban them from an public library.
Your article mentions nothing about trying to ban private possession of these same books, also does not mention which books are spoke about at all.
An elected by the public official, maybe even elected on the grounds of promising to ban these books, again your allegation only mentions tried to ban books not specifics, certainly has the right to inquire wether said books can be removed from a public financed venue, ie. the library.
I also fail to see what that topic has to do with gamepolitics.com.
But since brought someone brought up a first amendement issue: Without the Second Amendment the continued existence of the First is dependend of the goodwill of politicans and activist judges. Which is to say dead, sooner than later.
Palin has more executive experience than any of the others (McCain, Obama, Biden). Matter of fact: She has more more foreign relations experience too - Alaska shares no border with any other US state.
Palin was the mayor of a "town" containing fewer people than two blocks of Barack Obama's congressional district. She is the governor of a state containing fewer people than America's ten most populous cities -- and she's been that for less than two years. Furthermore, she has been out of the country exactly twice, by her own admission, and neither of those trips were to Russia or Canada (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), the two most salient nations to her claims of foreign policy experience. I will say that again for the slow of thinking: the woman lives in ALASKA and has never been to CANADA. That's some awesome cred there.
She has a trackrecord of dealing with big oil and corruption and winning.
Her method of 'dealing' with big oil was to pass a windfall profits tax on oil companies operating in Alaska -- the exact same windfall tax favored by Barack Obama, which she and her running mate now oppose. Rank hypocrisy much?
Also: Palin is under investigation for abuse of her powers as governor and is likely to be indicted on corruption charges resulting from that investigation. The McCain/Palin campaign is frantically trying to keep the results of those investigations from coming out in October. Again: hypocrisy much?
As for banning books - she tried to ban them from an public library.
This is called a legally actionable violation of the First Amendment, skippy. The government -- even the government of a half-pony town run by a whackjob fundnut mayor -- is not allowed to practice censorship. It doesn't matter whether the 'venue' is publicly financed or not. And the topic is this: it starts with books, it moves to other forms of media that censorious assholes choose to target, like books, movies, and video games, which are, by any sane metric, in the center of a full-blown moral panic being flogged by the likes of Palin and her running mate. Pull your head out of your ass, stop fondling your guns and your Second Amendment, and use your brain for something other than processing the Reichwing's most recent excretions.
You know it's bad form to accuse people of being gun nuts without any sort of evidence.
::cough::
But since brought someone brought up a first amendement issue: Without the Second Amendment the continued existence of the First is dependend of the goodwill of politicans and activist judges. Which is to say dead, sooner than later.
Invoking the Second Amendment while shrugging off attempts by an elected official to act against the First? If he doesn't want to be thought of as a gun nut, perhaps he shouldn't have brought the issue up.
Also, I just have to say this.
Second Amendment. When it was written, almost NOBODY actually 'owned' a gun, because they were far to expensive to pay for the average populace. Instead, weapons were kept in a community-accessible area, such as a storehouse. When there was a call to garrison by the community militia, they would go to this locale, and arm themselves for whatever was coming up. Afterwards, they would return their equipment, and go back to their lives. It was written, so that these communities could have militias, that are easily and quickly formed, to defend the community should there be an attack on the town (let's say they had in mind at the time of writing, if the French or the British were to suddenly initiate war again), because of the difficulty of mobilizing a military force, which could've taken days and be far too late to defend the town. With the rights of a community militia, whom be armed, it would at least, hopefully, slow down an advance, or drive off whatever it was, if it was something else (say, a pack of wolves or a bear, whatever. I'm just using examples).
Furthermore, no, the First Amendment could easily exist without the Second. After the Revolutionary War, there was only one other on American soil, the Civil War. But that was not fought between militias (well, by that, I mean they weren't the standing forces against the South), that was done by military, which does not equal a militia.
So, to summarize, the Second Amendment was to A. Allow a community to have rights to arms and a militia, and B. To have members of the militia the right to take up arms against a conflict, such as a raid or invasion. Nor does the First depend its existence on politicians and judges. No, it's dependence is on the People. The judges (activist judges? My ass.) are there to ensure, if they do their job right, that the Constitution is the law above all other laws. The Second Amendment has no power over the First in any way, except for the feeling I get that they think it'd be okay to go shoot someone in the face, because they don't like what what someone said and would defend their offense as "freedom of speech." The First Amendment would have no trouble living on without the Second. Especially nowadays, considering we no longer have any need for militia, and all warfare is done by the military. Just to note, I'm not saying to ban guns, I'm just saying that without it, there would still be a strong First Amendment, as its defense is the judiciary branch, not the NRA.
Um...People couldn't afford guns? That's new. Almost every head of house hold owned a gun for hunting food when needed. It was quite common at the time.
Also, the second ammendment says that the PEOPLE have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the town militia. Such a central location for firearms would actually be less effective in a case of emergency. All it would take is one swift invasion or one corrupt politician to deny access to those weapons to the militia and defeat the town.
How is that beneficial?
E. Zachary Knight
http://www.editorialgames.com
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes it is about people not Militia's keeping arms but it is clearly for the reason of a Militia. And no I don't agree with the couldn't affor guns comment.
I've always been surpised by how well the pro-gun population is prepared for a sudden war. I've always been of the view that is the army went rouge has significantly more firepower than the civilians and would have an easy time conquering (or at least decimating) any town they target, at least until the good army steps in.
Meanwhile, those of us born into places with violence issues have to deal with living within a warzone at times. The laws we have on the books to keep guns in the hands of civilians are the same laws that completely nullify the laws we have to protect the civilian population from the criminal population. Usually I'm pretty extreme in my views against restricting anything, but having been shot on three seperate instances by the age of ten is a pretty good reason to have an anti-gun disposition.
Of course, I recognize the my cause is dead, and I just patiently wait for a gun toting good samaritan to prove me wrong by saving my life rather than putting it in danger.
You are either retarded, completly misinformed or a liar.
I don't claim to be an expert on the issue, but almost everyone had a gun back then.
It's like saying no one has a phone now because their too expensive...
Let me repeat that, almost everybody had a gun back then.
Also centrally located arms sotrage was a british convention which the founding fathers where against. The states didn't have armies or town guard or whatever. They had people in their homes that could be called upon to fight with the weapons they had in their homes. If this was not the case then US would still be a British territory as british troops where stashioned in many cities and well armed and trained. Do you really think they wouldn't have secured the one place in town where ALL the weapons were stored? Seriously? riiiiiight....
Militia back then was a bunch of people from a town getting together when something is going on, there were no standard or trained forces, just people that owned weapons(pitchforks are included in this, kitchen knives also...)
Ok so you are misinformed. There was plenty of actual full out wars against native american tribes without a clear victor then many years later there was a victor and he wasn't very nice to them. The territory of florida was attacked captured by a US army unit then returned, there was a war with british canada(canada won), mexico attacked USA after texas voted to join USA(US won that one) etc...
BY the way, the main reason that Japan didn't invade during WWII(which would have preveted US from sending troops to Europe until it was way too late...) was because the generals there all said that it would be suicide to invade a nation where half the civilians are armed...
By the time of civil war, military forces had been established but if you think all the militias weren't involved in that war you are kidding yourself... how does this relate to the second amendment by the way? Pretty sure the founding fathers didn't mean for the central governemnt to control the state through military force(in fact that is one thing all founding fathers agreed on). So the war which went against ALL the principles of the constitution is your example as to why the second amendment isn't important? good one...(by the way, civil war was never about slavery... setting the slaves free was Lincolns war plan for demoralizing the south and making all the 50,000 confederate black soldiers turn on their fellow southerners...)
So to summarize you are very very misinformed...
The reason Japan didn't invade the mainland U.S.A. was because they were too far away and lacked the power to support such a distant invasion in 1942. A large and proffessional army (the only kind that would consider attacking the States) would not be defeated by the armed population of even a Southern, gun-heavy city- there would be considerable resistence, but any full-out attacks by the population would lead to decimation, and guerilla warfare could be controlled by a large enough garrison.
Since everyone seems to be talking about guns: you know if we were to ban guns, all that would do is take guns away from honest people...the criminals, who already obtain guns illegally as it is, would still have them. So then you leave the innocent without a gun...not to mention they are recreational too, not to mention a lot of people rely on hunting for food.
I forget where i first heard it, but i think i recall hearing that the orginal purpose of the right to bear arms was not just for the militia, but also as a way to give americans the ability to revolt against the government should it become corrupt; kind of a reaction to their years under the british... If the government ever lost it's way, americans could change it by force if they needed to... without the 2nd amendment, a corruot gov't could ban all firearms and supress and future attempt to rise up against the gov't. If true, this purpose of the amendment has becomes rather moot as a revolution of untrained american citizens stands no chance against the actual US military...
Though don't get me wrong, overall, i'm pretty neutral on the 2nd amendment debate
Are you seriously pulling the "Alaska is close to russia so she must have foreign policy experience" crap? On what planet does this make sense?
As far as her experience, she was the mayor of a small town in Alaska with a population of under 10,000 people. When she was elected, the town had no debt. When she left, she'd wracked up a 22 MILLION dollar debt. And then, she couldn't even go a full term as governor without landing in the middle of an ethics investigation.
Alaska has the tallest mountains of any state, making it the closest to outer space. Think of the great benefits to our space program to have someone with that kind of experience!
Alaska is also one of the coldest places in the world! Surely somebody from there will be able to do excellently in the struggle against global warming!
Wow. You seem to imply that her actions were better because she was trying to ban the books from a public library rather than private ownership. That's ludicrous. They're both reprehensible actions.
To say that she has more "executive experience" is to say that you have bought the rhetoric of your party hook, line and sinker, and that you have very little intelligence indeed.
You could say that an executive assistant at any corporation has "executive experience" and I guess if they had been there for a couple of years they would have more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined. This sort of logic is for the dullards who are suckered by their own lack of reasoning and are conned by a little smooth word play.
As for foreign policy experience, living in a state which is not being bordered by other states does not qualify as experience. Going to other countries, receiving foreign dignitaries and having knowledge of and experience with foreign policy and leaders is the only actual test for experience in the area.
By your description, she should be an expert in oceanography by virtue of living next to an open body of water.
So what you're saying is that because GP doesn't specify which books Palin wanted to ban, then it's okay? Some books should be censored? And as for "banning" private possession? It's called not buying the damn books! If you don't like them, find them questionable, or are otherwise insulted by some form of literature, simply ignore it.
As for Palin's experience bit, come now. Be honest. Just because Alaska doesn't border another US state doesn't mean she has all that much diplomatic experience. Why on earth would Canada try messing with us? As for Russia, come now. They're too invested in messing with former Soviet bloc nations. Plus, I don't see you touting the governor of Hawaii as someone with lots of foreign affairs experience. That would be a useful comparison no?
And comparing it to GP, as some have mentioned earlier, video games are just books that don't require you to use your imagination and DO require lots of expensive hardware. Comparing the two is valid and justified.
Finally, the 2nd Amendment in this country is as good as dead. Gun laws? It's not easy to legally buy, own, and use guns in this country. The First Amendment is the only thing keeping lawful gun-toters from getting their wonderful toys confiscated and officially banned, since people would flock to defend their 2nd amendment rights by using their 1st Amendment rights.
"Let's not beat around the bush. McCain put her in because he KNOWS he's losing to Obama and wants to draw in on the female market of voters.
There's no other reason and anyone who disagrees is a fool."
See, this is what pisses me off. You're blatently, clearly, patently wrong and yet you're so willfull in your ignorance that you gleefully claim that anyone who dare disagree with you by using logic and understanding is a "fool."
They didn't pick Palin to "draw in on the female market of voters," they picked Palin to energize the evangelical, socially conservative base that has, until now, been lackluster in their support of McCain. See, the Republicans aren't afraid of not having enough support with independents, they're afraid that they'll get that support but in so doing they'll alienate their traditional base and that base won't come out in vote.
Think about it - what are the Democrats attacking? Sure they're going after the low-laying fruit like Palin's lack of experience, but they're also going after her "moral high ground." If the concern was the independents and the middle ground voters then the Dems would be attacking Palin on her crazy nutjob extreme views on creationism, Global Warming, sex education and religion in general. They're not going after that - at least not yet - because such an attack would backfire and serve to pump more energy into the traditional conservative base. Instead they're saying things like, "Palin would be a bad mom if she were elected because she couldn't spend enough time in her traditional role," or "Palin doesn't care about her family because she was willing to drag them through the mud in a political campaign."
See, the Dems are concerned because their current base is young people, the most traditionally lackluster voters while the Republicans' base are the most traditionally active voters. Right now the youth vote is very energized and the evangelical vote is not and the Dems want to maintain that momentum while the Republicans want to shift it.
I don't know about the Dem's choice of issues, I'm from Canada so not exactly entirely familiar with what the voting apathy is like there at the moment, but I do entirely agree with you as to why they picked her. Hard line socially conservative values. A lot of her views contradict that of women who would not already be voting republican. That being said her hard line conservative values are why I would not vote for her.
In my honest opinion. The Polls are rigged, the elections are rigged, and your vote doesnt mean crap. Why bother. Were doomed.
The rigging might not be complete, or just not a forgone conclusion at this point, but efforts are being made in that direction. A journalist by the name of Greg Palast has some truly facinating insights into the efforts underway to make sure that some very specific votes do not count, something to which he has devoted a good deal of time and energy since the 2000 American Presidential election.
It makes for interesting reading, not just for Americans, who deserve to know how their trusts have and are being betrayed, but for the larger world audience, who might be interested in how one of the most powerful political positions in the world can be stolen.
His claims strike some as conspiracy theory initially, but if you take the time to look, he cites sources throughout, and to my knowledge, has yet to make a claim without the paperwork to back it up.
Worth a look.
Great point Tom. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Palin appeals to the conservative base and that is why they picked her.
Actually her stance is no abortion unless it endangers the mothers life.
I'm not a fan of book banning or Palin, but she is okay with abortion if the mother's life is on the line.
What the hell? Remember that article about Biden? Oh yeah, it doesn't count since it doesn't help your conspracy theory.
Biden was in favor of enforcing the DMCA which, while bad, is not as bad comparatively speaking as banning forms of media outright which is what Palin is proposing. And I add that she allowed her religous beliefs to influence her decisions. Sound like anyone else we already know?
In another thread I was criticised for painting Conservatives and Christians with a broad brush. I wanted to be proven wrong, but this just reinforces my belief that they all alike: censorius every last one of them.
There are liberal christians out there, myself one of them. Unfortunately, the ones that would make christians look good (the ones that are open to the beliefs of others, respectful and even encouraging of being true to ones self, sexually accepting) tend to keep to our noses out of things that aren't our businesses, which means we don't get much press. Thus is life. We usually also have enough common sense to stay out of politics. It's a dirty dirty business.
"Unfortunately, the ones that would make christians look good (the ones that are open to the beliefs of others, respectful and even encouraging of being true to ones self, sexually accepting) tend to keep to our noses out of things that aren't our businesses, which means we don't get much press. Thus is life. We usually also have enough common sense to stay out of politics. It's a dirty dirty business."
It's tragic that this is so true.
Well, according to Fred Phelps, you're going to burn in hell anyway, so why even bother?
You'll get criticized because a broad brush is the tool of a lazy painter. There are plenty of Christians and conservatives , myself included, on this site that would defend to the death your right to slag off on them. But I suppose it just itsn't as fun taking the time to make an informed decision and paint blame on a person that tried to ban books as an individual when you can just splash the whole bucket on all of us... sorry I just really wanted to make that metaphor fit...
If there truly are more tolerant and liberal-minded Christains and conservatives, well then, speak-up louder! The extremists have done a great job of hogging the media and megaphones. If you disagree with what they're saying or doing and they are not representative of your religion as a whole, then you should be denouncing them more vociferously. Because as it is right now, it's due to them that Christians are percieved of as moral prudes. And perception, as they say, is reality.
It's because I don't hear or see the more moderate and liberal-minded Christians and conservatives spending more time actively denouncing these people that I have to wonder if they tacitly agree with what they're saying, because silence equals acceptance.
Maybe I am painting with a broad brush. But you know, sometimes it's true.
I can honestly only speak for myself when I say this.
I could care less what others think about christianity. I could care less what extremists of any kind believe. Their opinions hardly reflect mine, but I know that they won't be convinced by ANYTHING I have to say. I am currently enrolled in one of the most conservative public universities in Texas (that I know of). There is so much ignorance on this campus that it's hard to breathe sometimes. I don't speak up because there's really no need to. The people I am most likely to "convince" that my arguments hold merit probably already have beliefs similar to mine. Why should I waste the time and effort to pick up after some extremist nutjob when I will accomplish nothing? Silence isn't ignorance; it's the agknowledgement that you are only going to "convince" those who are already accepting of others/logical thinkers.
@ black manta
The issue is that "live and let live" christians, let and let live. Even those that have extremist views.
Or come on now certainly you must find it amusing to laugh at the idiotic arguments of those kinds of people. Sometimes it can be fun and as such I'm sure you can convince some of the people to be slightly more accepting.
Well Ok it can be good for a laugh but sometimes the unreletnting stubborness can make your head spin. But beyond that I'm sure there must be something worthwhile.
Wow. I can clearly see the connection between banning books and banning games - infact, if she's willing to ban books then she's probably much more willing to ban games because there's no doubt that she would rate games as "lower" then books on the cultural validity scale.
I'm glad that GP brought this to light because I haven't read it anywhere else yet.
First amendment issues are too important to ignore...
Then DON'T. READ. IT.
For god's sake, man, it's a blog that not THAT many people even read.
Hey bud, this has a lot to do with games. If she is that crazy with books, we can only try to ask her directly, while protecting our balls and prepare for a hard blow on how she will react about video games.
If she is forcing religion into her choices I am even more against this lady because I believe in a very strong separation of church and state other than strictly basic morals and ethics, which if you are not an idiot, you learn outside of religion as well, but these are politicians. So I expect very little of them.
I think her attempt to ban books is a good thing.
It shows that she is going after all forms of media rather then focusing on new shiny things...
(or she just doens't like books which I find amuzing... then at least games are safe :)
It also means that all forms of media will lobby their asses off to make sure that no censorship EVER occurs...
add the public outcries and the fact that first four years in white house are a re-election campaign...
Sounds like good news to me... not perfect news but enough to like her more then Biden...
"Wow. What a stretch. GP will put up any news item that bashes Mcain/Palin. This has absolutely nothing to do with videogames. Yet GP goes out of its way to update itself at an irregular time with a hit-piece. Nice."
I think you fail to see the point of there article on her, if this is true then they've done the right thing by informing the public that this woman may pose a political threat to the American gaming industry + all the countries that market there games in America.
Someone whose willing to ban books over religious reasons and is willing to result to intimidation to get there own way it wouldn't be to far of a strech to to say there a threat.
But hey if your going to bash a site on politics for providing a political view you go right a head ;D.
You know, I'm going to use the power of the state to supress your message, because I find it morally objectionable.
Go eat some more republican dick, asshole. Go on. You know you haven't had that taste in your mouth for what...five minutes?
Also fuck you.
Anyone who thinks this report of Palin's attempt at banning books has "nothing to do with gaming" isn't thinking enough. Believe me, plenty of people in our would-be Morality Police - the religious right - see modern music, videos, and gaming ALL as "corrupt influences" on young people. Open your eyes: Here's somebody running for a top office of the country who is apparently quite comfortable with the idea of censorship. If people like her had their way, books would only be the start - then music, movies, and videos including video games.
That's pretty ridiculous to ask the question: Would Sarah Palin ban certain video games as if any Vice President would have any such power! It looks like some folks are grasping at straws! Also it is Sarah Palin's right in a free country to try to ban books from her towns library just like it's your right to want to put the books into the library. I really don't see any point here. Why don't you talk about Obama's Middle name "HUSSEIN" and try to make some big deal about that?
you don't think the fact that an elected official who made an attempt to ban books has any relevance to the video game debate?
Seriously?
Also, don't forget that I also called out Joe Biden a couple of weeks ago over his crappy record in regard to consumers and tech issues.
It's possible, considering that she's willing to ban freedom of speech like she's the Pope. If video games are morraly objectionable to her, she won't hesitate to collaborate with top industry 'haters' (I'm talking to you, Joe Lieberman and Jack Thompson and all others) to make a law that will make video games and the act of playing them punishable by law.
Once a censor, always a censor, I always say.
Agreed. It's a bad track record that's going to follower her but she does have a back door out that I'm sure she won't be afraid to take.
I just burn all of my books. I don't try to get the government involved.
See, this is the kind of "cut out the middleman" efficiency we need in this country...
Scrumpus for President!!!
Well, it's official. Dennis has flushed any journalistic integrity he once had right down the toilet. Guess Thompson was right after all. Guess there's always a first time. Sad day.
Go home Jack, you're drunk.
We know you're voting McCain now Thompson. No go take your meds.
Enjoy your disbarment!
OK, now there's a "1 + 1 = foot" response. The complete lack of discernable logic makes me agree with the opinions that JT jumped in here.
Hey, (possibly) Old Man Thompson! Shouldn't you be resting up for the final verdict of your disbarment trial? Wouldn't want you to be sleepy when the entirety of the Florida Bar slams the book on your sorry ass. Great day.
...after you get disbarred.
Why are you guys so convinced this is Thompson?
Because assumptions are awesome.
Because Thompson is the only guy who can manage to have a drunken slur in a textual medium.
Hey, I said "(possibly)". It could be him, it could be a follower of his, it could be a fake. You never really know....although now I'm kinda wishing Dennis didn't ban JT's GP account, just so we'd know if it was him or not....
....Of course, he could just turn around and post anonymously...like he could (or could not) be doing here...
You know what? Whatever. The writing style is almost the same as JT's, sans failed subpoenas and motions and whatnot. If it's him, then we got him; if not, then whatever.
Not the same at all. I never went into any self promoting monlogues.
Because he's the only one who calls GP Dennis, and the only one who says GPs journalistic integrity is in the toilet.
Honestly, it must be packed in that toilet. How can Jack see anything in there when he has all of Fox News blocking his view?
I didn't realise that only Thompson was allowed to call Dennis by his real name. I never got that memo.
Even though it's not about video games it's still fucking stupid banning books.
As a Canadian, I find this very interesting. Now admittingly, Barack Obama has stated that families should spend more time together rather than waste away behind the tv or the xbox. Good statement. Not against videogames, not for them either. A neutral stance. Biden....not exactly pro-gamer or anti-gamer (Questionable ties to certain groups, yes...but still hasn't gone against gamers). Walking the line...but not crossing it.
McCain, also not strictly anti-gamer or pro-gamer. However his 2nd in command choice, is a mother (nothing against that) who happens to be very religious (not against that too, I am loosely catholic...but one of those that believe that we should not bash other religions or be uppity about our own faith), though her records show that her conflicting decisions (like the firing of certain individuals), the republician rep being interviewed on CNN that tried to spin a good story while the interviewer speared him, and this recent turn of book banning...reeeeeally does not bode well. This shows and proves, that she is willing to ban one of the oldest forms of media for the "betterment" of society. Which we all know is a load of crap. What is stopping her from wanting to ban books for their "questionable content" to videogames, which already have been questioned for their content without provocation of banning by many politicians or wannabe politicians?
I hate to admit it, but what happens to the United States...really does echo up here. If a media is banned, Canada takes a 2nd thought...hell the ENTIRE world takes a 2nd glance and thought. Whether or not Palin is a women or a man, any person who takes a stab at censorship, while claiming they live in a democratic and free nation...has my smoldering glare upon them.
Not even our own Conservative Government dares media censorship, because they know it would kill them politically and kill their ingetrity. Which is why suprisingly they are popular this time around. Companies like Ubi-Soft and Bioware thrive up here. Kind of a laissez faire attitude exists in this country...and I hope the days of the Clinton era, where censorship was mostly shrugged off and a free viewing and safe society existed (honestly despite Bill's personal issues, no major problem existed in the country for too too long.)...I really hope the next US government can restore that kind of golden era. No major wars, no reining in on civil rights, no conflict...but merely peace, growth, respect, and prosperity.
United States of America as a power, reflects the situation in the world. I'd rather it reflect itself as freedom for all voices (within reason...any hatred remarks like "Jews are evil" or "blacks are etc etc" not needed) are truly needed in the world today. A divided and angry America has been at the forefront for the past 8 years, I want to see a change.
Your friendly Northern Neighbourhood Friend,
HarmlessBunny.
"freedom for all voices (within reason...any hatred remarks like "Jews are evil" or "blacks are etc etc" not needed) "
You do know Nazis get freedom of speech to bash Jews down here right? (Yeah I know Godwin's law and all, but it was the first thing that popped in my head ... I don't know of any that involve racists).
Of course. And they should be able to say it. You can say whatever stupid shit you want - and anyone can refute you and do their best to prove you wrong. Of course, directly threatening is a criminal offense.
Burning books always seemed much closer to killing those that disagree with you to me.
Biden isn't anti-gamer (and technically neither is Mccain's VP, she's anti bookworm) but he favors copyright laws that apparently no one here likes. I don't play a lot of PC games and I don't think I've ever had to run into them so I can't comment about them here.
In either case I think Biden would face less obstacles in his proposition to enforce copyright laws then Mccain's Vp would if she tried to outlaw books (or games).
Ah, conservatives. Small government when it comes to corporate taxes, bigger government when it comes to imposing their values and morals on you.
Depends. Sometimes, you are completely on the mark. When it is in a multi-party (3 or more) democratic government, where the leading party does not have a majority standing (like the current situation in Canada or in many other European nations), the coalition government has to abide within rest of the policies of the other parties, or face a full shut down of a non-confidence vote in parliament. A government that is conservative...that must give a little, take a little in order to survive.
Canadians are well used to this...coalition governments do not last long. With a mere exception of our current government, which has been a ruling minority for more than two years. An accomplishment on our part lol.
Back to the point though, not all conservatives are media banning. Some are just nutty to the core, some are willing to sell out for the biggest dollar amount, and some are dictated by common-sense that to try and censor anything will bite them in the arse down the road.
This is not to bad GP less sensational than some of the others :P
however you should reiterate that she’s not banned books(?) since being governor so she’s probably got that nonsense out of her system.
(god I ahte the way this re/formats fotns and stuff....)
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
Has she? There hasn't been any statement from her camp yet that makes that claim. If GP made it for her, that would be an assumption and not a fact. That would make the article MORE biased.
GP reported The information that hes has. When new information from her side comes up (and is relative to gaming or the First Amendment), I'm sure he will report it.
Not exactly related, but the second favorite person gamers love to hate, Senator Palpatine...er, Joe Lieberman, was at the RNC last night and gave his speech. Apparently he's still confused as to exactly what party he belongs to since he severed ties with the Democrats. One of the things he said was:
"This year when you vote for president, vote for the person you beleive is best for your country, not for the party you happen to belong to."
So Joe, you're at a convention where practically everyone in attendance is there express their solidarity in support of McCain. And you go and tell them essentially to cast your vote for whom you beleive in, no matter what party you belong to? Ooooooooo-kay. You realize that in essence you are saying vote for the other guy, even though you're supposed to be there supporting the Republican's candidate, right? :facepalm:
I've long believed Joe Lieberman was a Republican in Democrat's clothing. This proves it. He's genuinely confused. This is worse than Zell Miller.
First the announcement of Sarah Palin as VP and all the stories about her including this one, then their having to curtail the convention on account of Hurricane Gustav, and now this. It seems like the Republicans are continually shooting themselves in the foot big time with one gaffe after another, and I have a feeling by the time this convention is over, they'll find themselves more on the defensive than the Democrats are.
She tried to ban books, a form of free speech. That immediately goes against Article VII, Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution (which effin' everybody knows by now what it is). Although with what the Republicans have been doing over the years (and others in the moral majority), I'm not that surprised.
And yes, we should be concerned about someone powerful trying to ban a form of entertainment: if books get banned, then what else? It's a slippery slope, my friends.
I wanna see the McCain supporters on this site try to spin this positively!
Oh come on, GP, this is just sad.
Can we PLEASE get back to the video game issues? This has about as much to do with gaming as cheese does to cheesecake.
You don't see the incredibally obvious parallels between the two? Could you at least see that this means she'll probably support video game legislation if it got to her?
I agree that it's an issue, but it has nothing to do with gaming in and of itself. There are first amendment issues here that certainly need looked at, and I suppose if the article had been written more with a look on that instead of the event itself, I'd be more interested. As it is, though, this article doesn't seem like something that fits the theme of the website.
The site's been following the campaigns of the two major US parties for some time now. Make yourself less of an obvious Limbaugh Fanboy and bitch and moan in the articles critical of Obama and his sidekick who wants to kill everyone who pirates MP3s.
first of all please stop with the ad hominem attacks fremen
Second it does relate to gaming in a loose but relevant way. If someone wants to regulate a more 'high class' entertainment it's likely they'll regulate games. I know I said this all ready but that's the connection, censorship. True it could be possible that she only goes after books and never mentions games but nonetheless the fact that a major party's VP once supported obvious censorship is relevant.
Although like I said it's a bit of a loose connection but I wouldn't call it bad/sensationalist journalism.
"True it could be possible that she only goes after books and never mentions games"
Seriously? Does anyone actually believe that? Based on everything we've got on this woman so far...does anyone seriously believe it's not just a matter of time before she ends up at direct odds with our industry?
I said it was possible I didn't say it was likely. I believe that if she does try to ban certain books it's only a matter of time before video games are on the list being the current day scapegoat that they are.
I'll go on record as saying it is inevitable.
1) She's willing to inact censorship over material she finds objectional in direct opposition to the freedom of the First Amendment.
2) Banning books is a taboo. A vast majority of americans would be against it. Bringing up this desire again would be political suicide.
3) Banning videogames is not under the same taboo. In fact, it's politically in vogue right now. She'll likely score points among Concerned (Scared-Stupid) Parents if she announces her intention to go after videogames.
Wow.. I never knew that...
thats horrible.. I did not like her before but now I kinda dislike her even more. It books for god sakes!! Why in gods name should you ban a book just because you may not agree with the message or some of its contents? And yes it is a very valid question when you are thinking about videogames..... because today people tend to blame videogames like they used to blame comic books and so on....
You have the whole rest of the front page of the site to do that, dude. Why don't you do THAT?
Dennis posted a valid question. If she is wanting the banning of books with "questionable material", what is stopping her from wanting to ban video-game material that has "questionable material"? A slippery slope indeed. The wanting to ban of one media, affects ALL media. GP as a video-game and politics site, which reports on all things politics and video-game related...this affecting interactive media (yes books are media...) this may or may not have profound impact on all of us, if she ever got into power.
Food for thought.
I am tempted to say that given this happened years ago, there's the off-chance that Palin has seen the error of her ways by now, and would be moving into more tolerant waters.
She hasn't yet stated any such thing. That's wishful thinking.
Also, the fact that she even attempted it means she's a threat to american freedom. You don't just dip into violating the First Amendment as a passing fancy. You do it because you are convinced in that you are right and the world is wrong.
Wait in the first two sources they call the librarian Mary Ellen Emmons but Time calls her Mary Ellen Baker. Anyone know why?
May have been married since the events. One of the names being her previous name (the author(s) just researched archived articles) and the other being her current name (author(s) actually followed up by contacting her).
Am I not the only one surprised?
*the only one not
Can we PLEASE get back to the video game issues? This has about as much to do with gaming as cheese does to cheesecake.
Cheesecake is made of cream cheese.
Much as the same way games are a form of protected speech, like books. So...
You're absolutely right.
Because like books, Videogames have also been targeted by governments over the world. And sometimes the statements of Anti-gamers are that Videogames are worse than books because of the interactivity of games.
Now when you look at a politician trying to use their religion as an escuse to try and bann books with objectional content, then who is to say that Videogames won't someday be targeted by the same person if they gain a more powerful position?
This is not just a issue related to Videogame censorship, but also movie censorship and also forms of censorship in many wide verieties of entertainment mediums.
And I believe that even when there are many Gamers are old enough to vite in the USA, they DO have a right to know about past information about the beliefs of Politicians in their local, state and federal governments and congress so they know who they are voting for.
Also I notice a few people here who are trying to bag Dennis on this site seem to be those of the Anti-gaming community that just come on here to bag Dennis for his good hard research source.
Remember that Dennis is not making news up, he is just writing and linking different articles that have some real solid ground on them. Just look at the links and find that most of the information is Secondary Material, therefore he is not making things up.
Even though they are different because of the age and technology, Videogames and Books share many MANY things in common, so yeah, in my opinion a book censorship issue is deffinately related to a Videogame censorship issue.
Thank you Dennis for bringing this to light about Palin. This is the first place that I have seen this and I cannot believe that absolutely nobody in the "main stream" press has picked up on something like this. All they seem to be interested in is her daughter being 17 and pregnant.
Maybe her daughter read a book with a sex scene and felt compelled to go recreate that scene in the real world?
Ouch
GOPtards can go to hell, this is just as relevant to our interests as the fact that Obama's VP dreams of a world where he's the pope and the RIAA & MPAA are the crusaders.
If she tries to ban videogames as hard as she tried to ban books then we've got nothing to worry about.
Given how many people are throwing anything they can find (or imagine) at the woman hoping that something sticks in order to smear her (see also: the insane baby-swap conspiracy theory..), it might be a good idea to double check this before jumping to conclusions. The only evidence so far is a few third-hand reports from a hostile, local journalist quoting a political opponent. Both of the latter may or may not have taken words out of context.
It could have really been a rhetorical exercise, as the Politico piece said. Or it could have been more of a "hey, some voters want to ban books, so give me an excuse why we can't" exercise in passing the buck. Or, yea, she could be a stealth book burner. Probably best to save the knee-jerk reactions for Jack though.
And, besides, the First Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to have your book purchased and distributed by the government. As such, it would still be a logical leap to link this to banning game sales between private entities.
The times is really agressive about fact checking stuff. They issued an apology to a decade old error once. I'll give that to them at least - though they still don't cover a lot of stuff that should be much more widely reported on.
Perhaps, but the only facts they've alluded to in this case are the words from a decade old newspaper which the Time article said "came out very harshly against" Palin, and that of the librarian from an opposing party who declined to comment for the articles. Ergo, it's still pretty much hearsay.
"No major wars, no reining in on civil rights, no conflict...but merely peace, growth, respect, and prosperity."
Yeah I guess your idea of peace and prosperity is 800,000 people being slaughtered in Rwanda, a genocide in Yugoslavia, and being attacked 5 times by Al Quida and not doing anything. Yeah no conflict my ass.
This is an issue but this really just looks like a cheap shot at Palin, Dennis please you can do better then this.
Give him time, she's just been announced.
I also read here that she also wanted the public schools to teach the students "creationism"
Just another Bible beater...
not a supporter of Palin or McCain (Barr 08!), but...
Palin herself stated that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. This was after what she said about creationism. She said this while running for governor. Not sure if she's suddenly changed her mind, but just saying...
I really hope this was a rhetorical argument. Otherwise, I find it rather depressing that free speech has so little respect across the political spectrum. Whatever happened to a small-non-interfering government?
Gift.
My word... IF the US votes Republican this time around, then the world will truly be fucked...
Amen. If that happens, I'm moving to Canada.
It's certainly valid, and with her already thinking she can tell every woman in America what they can and can't do with thier own bodies... video games don't sound like much of a stretch.
So she is another one of those, "Tom Sawyer and Hucklebarry Fin promote racism" type of people. That is good to know.
I think both candidates screwed themselves over with their VP choices.
E. Zachary Knight
http://www.editorialgames.com
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
I don't think that's a valid conclusion without knowing what kind of book(s) she wanted removed from the library. For all we know it could have been one of the books attempting to claim the Holocaust never happened. Protected by free speech, yes, but the first amendment doesn't give you the right to have your book in the public library system.
Especially since it's uncertain whether she actually wanted books banned or not - it could really have just been rhetorical.
It's not hard to make a logical conclusion when she wanted to have the public schools teach "creationism"
BTW, best video ever on evolution vs. intelligent design & creationism
"but the first amendment doesn't give you the right to have your book in the public library system."
It doesn't. But that's for the library to decide, not the government.
Agreed. For all we know, she wanted to ban science books, or reading primers, or even the Bible. I'd be interested is seeing that list.
rant
I don't think that's a valid conclusion without knowing what kind of book(s) she wanted removed from the library.
Would you care to explain how it even matters which books she wanted banned? Access to free media, just like the right to free press, is vital. Opinions shouldn't be silenced, no matter if YOU like them or not. You have no right, and neither does she.
For all we know it could have been one of the books attempting to claim the Holocaust never happened.
Well, what a shame if I am trying to do a report for school on this type of claim and my public library has no books on the matter because miss-holier-than-thou finds the content objectionable. You know what? I find the content objectionable as well - but I ask again why that matters even one iota?
[i]Protected by free speech, yes, but the first amendment doesn't give you the right to have your book in the public library system.[/i]
And the government doesn't have the right to make that call. In all reality, no one has the right to make that call. Books exist loaded with all kinds of opinions, some I agree with and some I don't. Every one of those books was written by a human being, some I like and some I don't. Every one of those human beings deserves the right to be heard. If the library felt that the book was a useful addition to their shelves, regardless of the reason, no one has the right to pull it.
Don't forget that the purpose of libraries is to have an aggregate of knowledge which is available to the public. If part of that knowledge base is silenced based on the morality-based opinion of some, then we have government-controlled access to facts, and thus government-controlled access to thought.
It comes down to choice. You don't like (fill-in-the-blank-book-you-detest)? Don't check it out. Don't read it. How dare you tell me I can't?
/rant
Especially since it's uncertain whether she actually wanted books banned or not - it could really have just been rhetorical.
^^That I agree with. No sense attacking the woman when we really don't know if it's even true.
So apparently the article says she wanted to ban books (which ones? That'd be really nice to know), basing their allegations on hearsay from the almighty 'anonymous officials/residents' and one Democrat.
And on top of that, she apparently didn't follow through.
*rolls eyes*
While it's chilling if a politician ever actually got books pulled from a library, it's actually a long standing political trick used in conservative states. I grew up in the southeast and a couple of times in my memory a politician looking for points with conservative organizations would raise the issue of removing books from the local middle or high school library, but it never happened.
I'm more interested in what Palin's policy would now be on the issue of book and video game censorship. Is she as bad as Romney who thinks there are part of a sea of filth? Or is she more like Obama and just thinks video games are a time waster for America's youth? The funny thing was that Huckabee seemed to be the most friendly to video games, how many times did he pose while playing Guitar Hero.
So, we get to choose between a VP who thinks censorship is A-OK, and a VP who is in bed with RIAA and MPAA, loves the DMCA, etc. I hope to god that whoever ends up president doesn't die in office.
I am not following this news story - Palin asked about banning "books" and ultimately didn't? Am I getting this straight? Why all the craziness on this site? It has likely not been covered by the 'mainstream' media because it is likely a non-issue.
I have to agree with some of the commentators that this really shows partisanship on the part of GP and I am disappointed.
We have no way of knowing why she didn't follow through. She may have changed her mind, and she may have been shouted down by a backlash of her constituents, such as when she fired the librarian in question (who was later reinstated by popular demand).
Just because it didn't ultimately happen doesn't mean it was because of anything she wanted or did of her own accord. The fact that she wanted to look into it in the first place should set off warning sirens.
The other aspect of this reporting is the NYT article itself.
Aside from the standard "republican = anti abortion = religous zealot = gun shooting fundamentalist", its the flavor of the article. They inject little tidbits of 'scary' but never follow up on them. There is nothing incorrect about the article but there is nothing of any substance either. In other words, nothing that is discussed in the article can be proven. But it is designed to instill doubt.
Example - they say she is a "book banner". The "proof" comes from a democrat saying that she discussed banning books. Are there any transcripts of this? Is there any context to this? What were the exact words? But we do know that no books were banned. They say she "fired the librarian" - and we are led to assume she did this over the banning issue. However, the NYT did not actually say that. Likely because there is no proof behind that assertion. What if the firing was completely unrelated? What if it was completely related. We don't know because the NYT can't tell us.
The NYT could have backed up the story easily with a quote from the librarian. But the librarian did not comment. I mean, anyone who worked at that library would know what actually happened and none were asked before this article was printed?
So we are left with an article that has a lot of the standard rumor, conjecture and rhetoric but it doesn't actually say anything.
It's like Karl Rove is working for the Democrats now!
If only; they'd be a shoo-in to win...But it's not like they aren't now (unless they screw up on an epic level).
Yes, surely the librarian that said "Hell no I won't ban books" was fired by Palin because God told her that if the librarian came to work on a certain day, she'd run over a puppy! She did it to save cute innocent puppies!
In other news, I think my sarcasm valve is broken.
Well a little added info...
-The librain was fired soon after Palin took office, however the librain was rehired after the public made a strong show of support (whatever reason Palin fired the libraian, the public did not agree with it); the librarian left a few years later and declined comment.
-Palin confirmed that their was talk of banning books as a local paper quotes her as saying that the conversations about book banning were “rhetorical.”
-The libraian was only one of numerous people who were fired once Palin took office; Some of these people were supporters of the previous mayor, but firing so many people was something that supposedly was unheard of in that town's past... She also placed a gag order saying that no one under her could talk to the press without her permission.
Frankly, the more i her about her the more i think she's firing anyone who will not bend to her will or share her world view... She doesn't fire people for doing a bad job but for not being a "team player"... it's either her way or the highway. "if you're not willing to ban books, i'll replace you with someone that will"
With that and her connections to Ted Stevens and the 527 thing it's all starting to make me think that Palin is to government corruption as Elliot Spitzer was to Prostitution. Though i'll just let the comming weeks settle that question...
I think she'd ban whatever the fuck she wants to.
~You Could Be Mine, But You're Way Out Of Line..~
What books did she try to ban?
How is that relevant? Free speech applies to all speech, so what books may have been on the list doesn't matter in the slightest.
Here is a list that was on both MSMBC and Barrack Obama's Website. It's been taken off Obama's website, but may still be on MSMBC.
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
Artemis Fowl by Eion Colfer
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Because of Winn-Dixie by Kate DiCamillo
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by J ohn Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Girls in Pants: The Third Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J. K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
Inkheart by Cornelia Funke
Inkspell by Cornelia Funke
Inkdeath by Cornelia Funke
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophane s
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Symbols by Edna Barth
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Ba$tard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Second Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants by Ann Brashares
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween
I love how all of the liberal college kids scream "this is valid!" just so they have a chance to take a cheap shot at Palin on GP...
Anyway: she didn't try to ban the publishing of books outright, she only tried to remove them from FREE PUBLIC ACCESS.
Does Toys R Us have Gears of War demo stations? Are the newspaper or radio stations allowed to use whatever kind of language they wish?
No?
Then quit whining about a concerned mother who doesn't want children to have unlimited access to objectionably content. Libraries are state-funded and should be regulated by the state, not pandered out by liberals as a "free speech smorgasborg".
She didn't even try, she just supposedly inquired about it and didn't follow through with it. My favorite part is everyone forgetting which party is largely responsible for most of the anti-videogame legislation in this country.
And I love how the Republican supporters come on here and whine annoyingly about how it's a cheap shot.
At the end of the day, the women showed an interest in contravening the First Amendment. Whether or not she succeeded is irrelevant - it goes to pattern. If she's happy with banning books - even if just from a library - as a small-town mayor, imagine what she'd be happy to do as a Vice President?
Regulation by the state - isn't that censorship? I thought Republicans were fans of parents making the choices for their kids, not the state?
Only problem is that I'm not a Republican.
The other problem is that I wasn't replying to you :)
"Does Toys R Us have Gears of War demo stations?"
They could if they wanted to.
"Are the newspaper or radio stations allowed to use whatever kind of language they wish?"
No but in my opinion they should, and it's complete bs that they can't.
"Then quit whining about a concerned mother who doesn't want children to have unlimited access to objectionably content."
Oh look it's the 'for the children' argument that we've seen numoerosu times before and by jove it still doesn't have much merit. If she was really interested in helping kids why thne did she discuss banning the books completely instead of just keeping them away from kids?
Finally libraries are not allowed to censor the internet service they provide to adult patrons (well they can but if the adult requests uncensored internt they have to abide) why the hell should the government then be allowed to ban books from libraries?
AMEN.
This would be more of a story if it a source other than an obvious Democrat opponent with hearsay or actually tried to get a book removed from something other than a PUBLIC library or better yet, tried to have a book banned from a store. McCain has a snowballs chance in hell of winning but a lot of you Obama supporters are going to be in for a rude awakening after he takes office.
The phrase, "a snowball's chance in hell" implies no chance at all. You then go on to say that he will take office - do you play the lottery, by any chance? Even if you don't, I have a fantastic offer for you - all I need is your credit card number and your bank login details :D
(Please don't actually post the information I mentioned above - I was just kidding!)
I think he means that Democrats are going to be in for a rude awakening once Obama takes office.
Obviously... And if anything someone could have been a smart ass and pointed out my missing apostrophe in "snowball's". =( McCain has no chance in hell of winning, even if the polling was showing it being close. Of course, there's still two months to go and a lot could change from today and November 4th but I doubt it. I'm not voting for either of them, but it is pretty cool that just the fact that we could have either our first black president of female vice-president in the same year. It just sucks that they and their running mates are all terrible.
I don't know, man - popular opinion was definitely against Bush getting re-elected, wasn't it? But I don't live in America - is the situation very different now from what it was then?
That's not entirely accurate.
Public opinion was split. We have been relatively united in our general dislike of the current administrator (I refuse to call him the "president"....he isn't my president, I didn't vote for his stupid ass, and refering to him as such does little more than insult anyone else who ever has or ever will hold the esteemed title), but when it came to replacing the president in the middle of a war, the opinions sort of went wayside to common sense. Many people felt that it was a mistake to have a complete regime change in the middle of a conflict, and I'm not saying that they are wrong, just under the mistaken impression that Bush and his lackeys were capable of doing something right.
For that matter, he hasn't won the presidential election yet. A broken electoral system, a voting scandal in the state his brother governed, and black people turned away from the poles marred both of our last elections, and their outcomes. For conceding the elections, I blame the Democrats. For keeping it close enough that they were able to cheat it out from under the democrats, I blame anyone who thinks that the President of the United States of America should be someone who would be nice to have a beer with.
Ah! Makes more sense now :)
What titles did she want to ban? I'm guessing "Safe Sex Alternatives To Abstinence" and "How To Keep Your City's Budget Balanced."
---
The Mammon Industry
I have actually seen this woman described as libertarian-leaning in the past, as hard to imagine as that is. Wow.
Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Seems like that's going to be her favorite thing to do.
I have a real quick question for anyone who lives/has lived/knows enough to answer: Just how strict are the libraries out there? Because I'm sitting in a Baltimore library now and I know that for the most part they just don't carry books with certain levels of profanity or adult themes because of exposure to children etc. etc. So from my perspective her finding books so "immoral" she feels the need to ban them entirely strikes me as somewhat alarming in and of itself.
This is kinda alarming isn't it? Oh well, McCain isn't gonna win anyway. It would break the cycle.
-Remember kids, personal responsibility is for losers! For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007) Just to name a few...
I used to respect gp.
Oh, shut up. If one story makes you lose respect for a news blog, then your lost respect was nothing to shed tears over. Although this entry is slightly obtuse, it's still relevant to the "freedom to enjoy various forms of entertainment" part of our lives.
I remember reading a list about all the books teachers weren't allowed to show students and the reasons why, and with each entry I read, I could feel the blood in the back of my eyes coming to a boil. If McCain gets elected and she tries to ban books again (and let's say, hypothetically, she succeeds), then what's to stop her from turning around and banning music? Or movies? Or (and here's where this becomes relevant) our video games?
I thought you said it perfectly with the first three words, but the rest was a bonus :)
Thanks and you're welcome, but looking forward, I think I may have made a slight mistake: now, he won't shut up. Jeez, this guy's almost as bad as.......Hey, wait a mintue...Could it be..?
"....Hey, wait a minute...."
Fixed. Sorry. My bad.
Oh, God help us if we lose our video games!!!!
If it came down to your video games and movies...or a child's life...which would you sacrifice?
Because Obama's been preaching about handing taxpayer dollars to third-world countries, and meanwhile morons like you dump cash into the deep pockets of Hollywood and the Silicon Valley as Obama spends $150 million on DNC security...
The child. Every time.
(I'm just kidding - or am I?)
(Yes. Yes, I am)
Are you a missionary out there in these countries personally helping the situation. If not, your opinions and views are no more valid than any on here. Some of us are very happy with our form of entertainment. You may choose the bible, we choose electronic gaming. Same thing lies at the heart of them both - internal and external happiness.
Except that "out there" (your use of that phrase was perfect - it shows how many of us live in a media-created box, with no intention to further ourselves beyond self-indulgence and the occasional orgasm), people die. Earth is not a Grand Theft Auto sanbox setting, kiddo.
"Because Obama's been preaching about handing taxpayer dollars to third-world countries, ..."
Sure beats handing it out to terrorist nations the way GW does it, dontcha think?
Nope. They harbor terrorists. Kill 'em all.
The child every time...
Hey, my comment was deleted! So the anti-Palin stance here at GP must actually be "only ban and censor when it's not in favor of liberalism".
Have you checked the posting guidelines?
Have you checked the Constitution?
Not lately, but what does that have to do with anything?
Freedom of Speech - First Amendment. Surely as a frequenter of GP, you know this...
Except that the first amendment doesn't apply to non-US government owned websites.
The problem is that he does know how the first amendment works, and you clearly don't. Dennis can't do a thing to stop you from starting your own website, and you have zero right to tell him what to do with his.
Not it is an obey the comment policy stance.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/disclosure
GamePolitics is designed to stimulate a robust discussion on a variety of topics related to video games, politics and culture. Users may voice their opinions freely, so long as the content of the information posted to this site is not threatening, menacing, racist, obscene, defamatory, an invasion of someone’s privacy rights, a violation of intellectual property rights or otherwise illegal, injurious or objectionable to Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA). Solicitations, advertisements or postings of a commercial nature also are not permitted.
E. Zachary Knight
http://www.editorialgames.com
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
So off-topic speculation without supporting documents about the VP candidate is not defamatory?
Oh, well, in that case: you're gay, and Obam is Muslim.
...unless there's something wrong with being gay or Muslim...
maybe he's a gay muslim. I want to meet one now.
It is on topic. Both books and games are first ammendment issues and if a person feels that certain books should be banned, then they will more than likely feel the same toward games.
Also, you are wrong on both counts. I am not gay and Obama is not Muslim.
E. Zachary Knight
http://www.editorialgames.com
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
Well, you're most likely liberal, so you're most likely gay. See how that works?
Assumptions are so much fun, aren't they, GP?
He wasn't posting anything as fact. He was speculating based on the reports he found in other media sources.
Also, you claiming I am gay or liberal based on no information, is a lot different than asking if someone would try to ban games based on little information on their history of attempts at banning books.
E. Zachary Knight
http://www.editorialgames.com
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
"Republican VP Choice Sarah Palin Tried to Ban Books"
Sounds like Dennis has already made up his mind.
And so have I: you're gay.
I made up my mind about you as well and it's based on observations I just made. You're an argumentative child who resorts to name calling when criticized.
What? It's an insult to be called gay? Get on the political correctness train with the other liberals!
And actually, I don't wait until I'm criticized before I call it like it is. You're gay, too.
...................Thompson?
You're half right. I'm bisexual. Also, political correctness is for those that are afraid of being honest.
Can we PLEASE have the integrity to distinguish between prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to buy certain books for a public library and a totalitarian banning the sale, distribution, and consumption of books by the public? One is sensible public policy, one is an infringment of personal liberties.
A M E N
It does seem troubling that someone who is mighty close to being sworn in to defend the US Constitution, does not support the 1st amendment's freedom of speech right when it happens to be morally objectionable to her point of view.
I like John McCain a lot, I think he is one of the few people in Congress who understands how to break through gridlock and get things accomplished (despite his anti-media stance, so does Lieberman)... but his pick for VP just baffles me. If the GOP needed to pander to the religious branch, they could have gone with Huckabee, who might want to ban smoking, abortions, and gay marriage, but to my knowledge didn't try to ban any books. Plus, I hear he can rock a mean solo on Guitar Hero. Then again, didn't he once say something about amending the Constitution to mention God instead of just We The People?
I have to agree with some of the other posters on here that there is a difference between banning or restricting Free Speech media and materials between private individuals, entities and businesses, and the removal of ojectionable media (God i hate that term though as any form of free speech could be seen as objectionable in somebodies eyes) from a public (read: taxpayer's funded) enitity.
On the other hand though, i realize that for some low income people, the public square is the only place where they can get ahold Free Speech materials they otherwise couldn't afford or get ahold of. So i'm stuck on this issue.
Also people please don't bring up the "Think of the children" bullcrap. The fact of the matter is it is the responsibility of the parents to keep their children away from Free Speech media they find objectionable whether it be the Holy Bible, Harry Potter novels, Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species, Scarface movie, GTA video game, 50 Cent CD. Allowing the government to take over even under the guise of helping parents sets a dangerous presedent to fundamental rights. (P.S. - even people under magically arbitrary age limits (minors) have First amendment rights from government censorship and rightfully so).
And as taxpayers, one method of protecting our children is to elect people who will take action based on the moral majority.
And what is it that the children need protection from. That is the question. When it comes down to approriateness or suitability (which is determined by each individual parent), it should be the sole responsibility of the individual parents in question. When there is no showing of actual harm (of which there is none beyond what some extremely weak, inconsistant and incredibly flawed and biased psuedoscientific studies claim) there is no need for government involvement.
If the majority does not agree, then nothing happens. If the majority agrees, then measures are taken.
Hence why Houston is banning smoking in public this year.
One of the great things about living in a democracy is that the views of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Hence the provision of freedom of speech and the other limits placed on the government in the consistution.
Banning books from one type of facility is not affecting Free Speech, especially if those books are FICTION.
No one even knows what kind of books she opposed.
The books are still available and still published, and would be even if her ban was in effect; you just couldn't get them at a library.
Big deal.
Whether or not a book, movie or other form of Free Speech media is fictional or not doesn't disqualify it from Free Speech protection or make it lesser Free Speech under the first amendment. The GTA video games are just as much of Free Speech under the First amendment as the Holy Bible is. If it has the ability to express ideas, information, messages, opinions and viewpoints whether or not they're considered negative, positive, good or bad, right or wrong, objectionable or not it is still Free Speech and therefore protected from government regulation and censorship. If people don't like the content or it or are offended by it's viewpoints and ideals, they can ignore it and choose not to read, watch, play or listen to it. That's what freedom is all about.
And they can also choose to elect a person who will remove the offensive material from public access, similar to the censoring of advertisements and public access TV and radio.
Luckily, one tenet of the creation of our government was to protect minority views.
"Protecting our children" is a meaningless phrase. There's "your children" and "my children." You're free to act how you want with your children, but you're not free to tell me how to raise mine.
Well, if you want to let your children have access to objectionable material, you can always let them have free roam on the internet or watch HBO late at night. I would like for my children to learn sex, drugs, and violence the way I see fit.
So it works both ways.
Tell you what: we'll let the libraries stock whatever they want, and we'll start teaching Creationism in school. If I don't like it, I'll keep my kids from the library. If you don't like it, you can homeschool your kids. Deal?
Teaching creationism objectively, as the theory purported by some religious views, alongside evolution, would not necessarily be a bad thing, in my opinion. Of course just teaching Creationism as you suggested is not remotely analogous to banning books, so nice strawman.
Your demiurgic vernacular is admittedly redoubtable; however, despite your attempts to inculcate, the point is moot. Free speech is free speech.
(Sorry, I'll try it without inspiring you to call up dictionary.com this time.)
Um...no? You objected to people calling her out for trying to ban books (against free speech), then suggest teaching Creationism in schools (and let's not even pretend you didn't mean "instead of evolution" - also against free speech), and then object to my suggestion that we could teach BOTH viewpoints and let the children decide based on all the facts given?
And you're trying to argue FOR free speech in this?
I see you're familiar with that site. How surprising.
While you're there, why not look up "sarcasm". It will do you worlds of good to learn that word, especially when reading the following line:
Global Studies is such an important and impressive subject for you to have learned, and it no doubt makes you a superior person.
Are you shitting me? "Free speech is free speech" was sarcasm, right? Yeah, quality argument. Please come back when you have something to contribute...I'm guessing that most of the "Anonymous" comments in this thread, which are indeed contributing nothing of value or substance, are coming from the same person.
As for reading my mention of Global Studies as some kind of insult or suggested point of superiority...get a grip. Self conscious much? It's a high school class that EVERYONE takes, it just happens to be where I remember religious instruction being part of a secular curriculum.
Also, do us all a favor and sign in so we have a name to attach to the ignorant spewing, please?
Edit: Let me save you some time. I know the library/creationism in school thing was sarcasm. It had to be, because it was a completely illogic, irrelevant strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the actual substance of people's objections to the very notion of a VP candidate who is ultra-conservative and potentially interested in banning literature.
You suck cock.
No deal. Creationism is religion. We don't teach religion in public schools. Send your kid to Catholic school if you want them to learn religion, or to your local madrassa.
You're missing an important detail. We do teach religion in schools, but we don't teach it as fact. When I took my Global Studies courses, we learned about the basics of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but they were simply presented as aspects of different cultures. It's no different than learning about Egyptian or Greek mythology when studying those cultures; it helps us understand them.
I don't think children should be taught that God created the world and everything in it in six days and then rested for a day. I think it's okay to teach them that the Christian faith says this. We should also be teaching them the theory of evolution as well. Let them decide for themselves after being given all the different viewpoints and supporting evidence (where applicable).
There are issues with that approach.
People will wildly differ on what they accept as evidence based on belief. For example, the idea that evolution is controversial in science is false. However, the manufactured controversy from religous groups- primarily Intelligent Design proponents and creationist groups such as the Discovery Institute- will supply scientifically discredited evidence wearing the trappings of science to further their arguments. There's no legitimate educational reason for teaching that discredited evidence.
"Decide for themselves" and "teach the controversy" arguments generally fall into that category. There are more reasons, but there are many resources to find out about them.
I think it requires an executive decision, honestly. Teach evolution and the reasons it is supported. Third-rate pseudo-scientific "evidence" refuting it with the flimsiest and most transparent of arguments really doesn't need to be included to provide a robust education about the different secular and religious views of creationism/evolution.
That's a false analogy.
I didn't say how I would want to educate my children about "objectionable" material. You don't get to decide what is objectionable for my children. I decide that.
The presence of creationism and religion in schools are completely different arguments, as are reasons why they would or wouldn't belong there.
Actually, the majority decides.
You just whine about the decision.
Funny, how the majority decided to remove religion from schools, and it's the conservative bible-thumpers who whine about it.
The only whining I hear here is you crying about books that haven't even been banned.
Are you kidding? :) In the U.S., the majority doesn't decide- that's why we have things like the Bill of Rights and concepts like individual inalienable rights.
Let me get this straight: A notoriously liberal newspaper SAYS that a DEMOCRAT SAYS that a librarian (who Palin later tried to fire- no bias there, right?) SAID that Palin SAID she wanted to censor books. And the story came out the day before she was to give her speech accepting the VP nomination.
Yeah. That's credible.
I can't help but want to yell "Hearsay!" In court, hearsay is generally inadmissible for the fact that it's so unreliable. Hearsay is basically when someone wants to repeat a statement someone made out of court. People like to make things up that were supposedly said before when it suits them. Let's do a hearsay count. Paper, 1. The DEMOCRAT, 2. Librarian who clearly would be pissed off at Palin for trying to fire her, 3. Palin, 4. Quadruple hearsay. And it's during the GOP Convention. Very convenient, yes?
GP's job is to report on news stories that have to do with video games and therefore with the First Amendment, and this is one, albeit rather unreliable. So I thank you for bringing it to my attention, but I just don't buy it, absent more facts and documentation.
I'd say I was rather disappointed at the usual conservative bashing and broad self-serving generalizations of some of the comments here, but I'm too used to them to really be surprised anymore. Just because someone has a different world view than you doesn't automatically make them wrong or an idiot. This may come as rather disappointing news to some of you. Debates backed up with facts and evidence can be really enlightening for both sides, but just slinging "Fox News lover!" and "All you conservatives want to censor things!" types of arguments really don't get anything done but causing more animosity. It's a shame we can't get past that. It's pretty much what I hate about politics.
Well, I think you summed things up very nicely.
Palin is strongly pro-life: http://www.smh.com.au/news/peter-hartcher/palins-prolife-code-loud-and-c...
Palin says that her daughter's pregnancy is "a private matter" to be decided "by the family": http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080904/OPINION12/80...
If this was completely coming out of nowhere, maybe you'd have a point. But this goes to an established pattern. This woman is ultra-conservative.
And just for fun:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah...
Okaaaaay . . . let me see if I get what your logic. Sarah Palin is pro-life. Therefore, Sarah Plain is ultra-conservative. Therefore, it more likely that Sarah Palin wants to ban/ censor books.
I don't think that being conservative makes it more likely that one would censor based on content. Have you read all the stories on this very site in which democrats are also authoring bills about video games? On addition, a look into history will show that it is liberals, and not conservatives, that promote more big government and government control. Of course, it's always couched in the interests of wanting to help Americans, but government interference is government interference.
The story here is about Sarah Palin allegedly considering the ban of certain books from the public library, based on their content, which would count, I suppose is ATTEMPTED government interference (maybe SOLICITATION of banning?). If I HAD to pick a side of the aisle that's more likely to do something that constitutes government interference, I'd say it was the liberal side. But honestly, I don't think that violating the constitution necessarily has to be relegated to either party. I don't care who does it. Such actions should be fought tooth and nail no matter who commits them.
But here, even if the story were true, no one really censored anything. If this story is true, she asked about it, changed her mind (as well she should have, if this is true), and that was the end of it. And there's not even another made up story about her doing anything similar since. Of course, for reasons stated in my above post, I think this story is completely unreliable.
About the pro-life thing. This issue seems to keep coming up in posts to this article. I'm not really sure about the connection. I would agree with you that it tends to be a conservative value, but I don't see what it has to do with censoring books.
If you really don't understand why the pro-life thing keeps coming up in articles like this, I'm not really sure what to say. It's a historical pattern of similar beliefs and policies. You're right about the liberals and sensorship, but you're looking at it backwards. I don't think anyone is saying "if you favor censorship, you're conservative". What's being said is "if you're ultra-conservative", which I think the recent matter of her daughter's pregnancy certainly supports, as does her hard-line stance on creationism in schools (I'll find a link for that too if you'd like supporting evidence, but it's all over the media), "then you're very likely to want to push your moral values on others, including censoring that which you don't agree with."
I will admit that this is based not just on the perceived track record of Sarah Palin, but also on the historical track records of others who have shared the views and policies that we do have evidence of here. "I know how best to raise a family, and I'm going to make sure you raise yours accordingly."
You don't agree. We get it. Doesn't make you right.
In fact, you have every right to leave the country any time you'd like. Meantime, the majority will decide what's best.
That...isn't even a logical response to my previous post. Whatever.
And last time I checked, the majority of this country is against banning literature.
Then why are you crying?
Okay. That was funny.
It's not crying, it's looking down derisively at some posters I see as being complete idiots. But hey, the "QQ moar noob" response is always a classic, good job.
Edit: If you're referring to why I bothered posting in this topic at all, it's because getting ultra-conservative asshats into positions of power (like the VP) is extremely dangerous because it gives them a realistic opportunity to force those ultra-conservative beliefs and values on the rest of us, something they can't do when they're just a gun-shaking backwoods yahoo in their own hometown.
I assumed in 2004 that whatever the dems put up, they really couldn't lose to Bush because who the fuck could possibly want to go through four more years of that bullshit, and it turned out I had more faith in them than I should have. It's dangerous to assume that everyone else will realize how awful an option is of their own accord, so I speak up when I see something I consider as such. I have a severe disliking for this woman - not because she's a woman, but because of the beliefs she's professed and her political record to date. If I say nothing and she ends up in office, I have no one to blame but myself for not trying to convince her would-be voters that she's a bad choice (even if they continue to disagree with me and support her).
"It's not crying, it's looking down derisively at some posters I see as being complete idiots."
Welcome to liberalism.
I have a gift for you. It's a black kettle. Enjoy.
You're a Democrat, right? So I should expect a tax increase for this "gift", then...
So your logic is like I say. She's pro life, so she's ultra conservative, and is therefore more likely to ban things. I respectfully disagree.
I've pretty much come to ignore most things revolving her due to the completely ridculious outburst of the media in general. I've never seen some much issue raised in more then a few days time over completely pointless things as they have with Palin. Those this particular issue may hold some ground, much of the issues she's been ridculed for still baffle me.
Palin is red meat for Reich Wing fundies.
She doesn't let the truth get in the way of promoting hot button issues for the base.
She is a liar and a hypocrite (perfectly suited for the GOP).
Let's see if GP lets this comment stay...
Broad generalizations are fun!!! So is name-calling. Is there like a set of talking points and fun phrases being provided to respond to valid arguments with? It seems very uniform. "Red meat" and "Reich wing fundies." Nice.
Speaking of which, I love red meat. That comment makes me hungry for a hamburger.
I'd debate the substance of your post, but I think it be like sitting in a rocking chair- lots of work, getting nowhere.
I'm curious as to which books she specifically wanted banned...
May I just point out that while Palin may have brought the point it, she did nothing furthur. People also need to realize Alaska is a lot differnt than most most of us are used to. Having lived there, many of the views are different. It is a concervative state (with liberal tendencies)...Palin only talked about banning books because her voters wanted her too. But back to the video game world where you all seemed concerned: did you know that you can up to an ounce of
marijuana in Alaska and it be legal...put that in your pipe and smoke it...because I know a lot of video gamers who smoke.
Perhaps some here are too young to remember, but I sat through about a 3-hour presentation on C-SPAN, sponsored in part by Hillary Clinton several years ago, where they showed the most objectionable scenes from video games. Their conclusion was that these video games were evil and were corrupting our youth.
Sarah Palin did try to get books banned. That is a matter of public record. She fired the librarian, but there was such an angry response from citizens in the town, that the librarian was reinstated, and no books were banned.
This *is* relevant and rather frightening. Assuming that Sarah Palin had never read these "objectionable" books, who was she using as her trusted authority on the subject? Interesting...
Who would she use as her trusted authority to decide which video games should be banned?
Really?
We're now attacking PRETEND censorship? Really?
Palin once talked about banning books and this merits a story?
Really?
I don't care what books Palin may have wanted to ban. It is simply a direct violation of our Constitution. Just the fact that she made the inquiry should disqualify her from holding high office and McCain should immediately remove her from the ticket. After all, he served his country to defend the Constitution and will be requried to swear to do so if he is elected President. Banning books is only a couple of steps away from burning books as the Nazis did.
As for the liberal media. I didn't hear conservatives whining about he liberal media when Obama was being roasted for comments his pastor made. Now they are whining about equally inappropriate comments made by Palin's pastor. Just be consistent.