According to Politico:
Other nuggets Democrats hope reporters will mine over the next two months:
....
— And, maybe, censorship. 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.
"Dems Armed with Palin Opposition," by Glenn Thrush, Politico, 29 August 2008.
At this point I could find little else to report on this matter, such as the context of the conversation, but I wonder how this "nugget" came to the attention of the Democrats "Palin Opposition" in the first place. Can anyone explain these things? Let me add that in 1997, Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin fired Wasilla Public Library Director Mary Ellen Emmons without warning. Ms. Emmons thinks she was "fired for politics." Coincidence?
Glenn Thrush, given librarians acting on the public's behalf are not supposed to be providing opposition research on one candidate or another, might an investigation of Mary Ellen Emmons's actions be warranted? Consider that the library that Ms. Emmon's directs has confidentiality and privacy policies that would make the provision of opposition research quite hypocritical, to say the least, particularly where the policies specify the library will "resist[] the issuance or enforcement of any ... process, order or subpoena":
Confidentiality: Any information that identifies Internet users with specific materials or subject matter is considered confidential. Such records shall not be made available to any agency of local, state or federal government except pursuant to such process, order or subpoena as may be authorized under the authority of federal, state or local law relating to criminal, civil or administrative discovery procedures or legislative investigatory power. Wasilla Public Library resists the issuance or enforcement of any such process, order or subpoena until such time as proper showing of good cause has been made in court of competent jurisdiction.
Privacy: While the library is sensitive to patrons’ need for privacy while using all library resources including the Internet, no guarantee is possible. Patrons are expected to respect the privacy of Internet users in the library.
I am curious exactly what leads you to believe that Ms. Emmons was involved in any way with the opposition research by the Democratic party. It would appear that all quotes from Ms. Emmons were taken from newspaper articles posted long before Governor Palin's run for the VP slot. Speaking to a reporter about her unfair dismissal hardly constitutes a violation of a patron's confidentiality.
ReplyDeleteThe firing attempt apparently came first - when Palin was elected mayor she immediately tried to fire the two city employees who had supported the incumbent mayor during the election - and isn't that reassuring after the partisan way the Bush administration treated hiring and firing?
ReplyDeleteAfter a huge pushback and threatened recall vote she relented and backed off on firing he library director, but not the police chief. That's the context of her censorship conversation with a library director she was forced not to fire.
The opposition research in this case is just reading back newspapers - this story apparently went public at the time.
jae-kae and Cliff make a point that the library director's statements were made long ago.
ReplyDelete1) Show everyone where, if you know, "just reading back newspapers" results in uncovering this information. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me by reading the Politico report and by the immediate timing of the disclosure that the library director was somehow directly involved.
2) Where a library director has a library policy that is so strict that it even says it will refuse to honor subpoenas and warrants, it seems more than a little hypocritical, to say the least, that that same library director would disclose a private conversation. That's what seems to have happened from the personal nature of the statement.
3) Even if it were true the disclosures were made in the past, the passage of time does not excuse the library director's actions that might be acceptable under normal circumstances, but are extremely suspect where her own library's policies are as strict about privacy and confidentiality disclosures as in this library.
4) "Speaking to a reporter about her unfair dismissal" is no excuse for the "violation of a patron's confidentiality."
Now Cliff begins to veer into issues irrelevant to the ones I raise, namely he starts talking about the Bush administration, about the past, etc. Such talk is a distraction from the issue of the library's possible double standard with respect to privacy and confidentiality, what are the consequences if privacy and confidentiality were breeched, and whether an investigation is warranted to make a determination in this regard.
While I am writing, why is it that the library has a policy that "resists the issuance or enforcement of any such process, order or subpoena"? In whose interest is it to resist legal process?
The American Library Association says, "As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws. Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts...." I am certain, on the other hand, that Wasilla citizens would want their public library NOT to "resist the issuance or enforcement of any such process, order or subpoena."
So, as a backdrop to what seems to be the library's double standard on privacy and confidentiality, there's the appearance that the library is adhering to American Library Association policy instead of the wishes of the local population. Is that legal? Might the citizens of Wasilla want their own public library to reflect their own interests, not those of the American Library Association?
Whatever, I appreciate both of you commenting here. I hope you will continue to do so. Thank you very much.
There is no "double standard" here at all, as the issue in question is a POLICY issue, involves NO patrons, and NO specific library materials at all.
DeleteThe ONLY issue addressed at the time, and the ONLY issue that was revealed, was a PUBLIC OFFICIAL asking the PUBLICLY-EMPLOYED head of the Library about a censorship issue.
Again, NO private library patron's book choices were either involved or communicated by the Librarian.
BTW, I find your attitude over the top, in someone using the rubric "SafeLibraries." The SAFEST Library for anyone, is a Library that enforces strict no-meddling provisions related to its own book selection policies.
You, on the other hand, seem to view a "safe" Library, as one that YOU can influence as to its book choices. That attitude is a very old one, and is always and only employed by those who wish to force their own criteria on the rest of us.
The Mayor isn't just a patron she's a fellow public servant - one subject to the will of the people. I would want to know if my mayor is spit-balling about engaging in censorship.
ReplyDeleteAnd lets be honest here, being so offended that a mayor's censorship leanings were revealed to the public seems to indicate an acknowledgment by you of how unpopular such leanings will be; If you are so confident that library censorship is a good thing why would you be upset about a politician's urges in that direction being made public?
Forgive me, Cliff, but I choose to stick to the issues I raised.
ReplyDeleteOf course its only being raised at all in the context of presidential politics, but I can certainly see why you would wish to remove as much context as possible from the discussion.
ReplyDeleteCliff, the issue is what the title of this blog says. I'll respond to comments/questions on that topic.
ReplyDeleteDan, you are getting more and more desperate in your attempts to find some sort of vast ALA conspiracy. It is sort of sadly funny. The idea that a discussion between the mayor of a city and her library director about library policy is in some way a privileged discussion between a librarian and a patron is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I can tell you who tipped off the Democrat's opposition researchers; it was the evil super-criminal Lexus Nexus! He is in league with the ALA!
Go back to exposing bathroom peepers - something more on your beat.
I'm not the issue. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteBut Dan, you are the one who provides "selective review" for your web site!
ReplyDeleteMight I point out something that was glossed over in the article, and that is that when/if the PAST Librarian made any statement about this history, she was -- wait for it -- NO LONGER a Librarian, thanks to Palin.
ReplyDelete...And thus not subject to any restrictions that a Librarian would be subject to, in regard to "opposition research" or anything else.
Now that, lightningjoe, is an interesting observation. Assuming, of course, she was indeed no linger a librarian and not just demoted.
ReplyDeleteLightningjoe, I just now came across an article that, if I understand it, says Palin relented and rehired the library director, after which the library director made her disclosures. If that were true, the privacy/confidentiality double standard remains.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the article links to the Politico story we have already discussed, so it's a little circular, and no other source is provided. So I do not know how much credence to give this new article. Here's the article to judge for yourself:
"From Miss Congeniality To 'Sarah Barracuda', How Sarah Palin Changed From A Pro-Tax Politician To A Ruthless Pol," by Glenn Church, Foolocracy.com, 30 August 2008.
Look at this, everyone. Someone takes the Politico article we are discussing here and makes a statement totally unsupported by that article: "She favors censoring library books (Alert your local librarian!)" That's from "McCain Picks Sarah Palin? Seriously?, by Monitor, Why We Need Obama (Blog), 31 August 2008.
ReplyDeleteTime will tell if this erroneous statement will be the start of a false rumor.
Confidentiality would only apply to what books Palin has checked out. Her actions as a public official to threaten censorship not only can be revealed publicly, they must be.
ReplyDeleteJohn K. Wilson, thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with you. However, based only on what I see so far, I see no "actions as a public official to threaten censorship."
Further, I'll venture a guess that her use of the word "censorship" was rather loosely, not in the strict sense. For example, people use the term "p()rnography" quite loosely to refer generally to something in their mind they cannot quite put their finger on.
For example, when a library allows children to view material that is inappropriate for them as defined by various laws and court cases, it is always easier to say the library allows children to view "p()rn." But "p()rn" is not really the right word to use--really it should be that whole phrase that I used above. Then when people use the word "p()rn" is such a loose fashion, it allows the library people to claim that the person using the term is overbroad, the term cannot be defined, and who's to judge.
Indeed I have a page called "P()rn Pushers, the ALA and ....," and even though I am clear that I am using the term loosely and I explain what I mean is rather based on the law and court cases, I still catch plenty of heat just for using the term loosely. I am suggesting the same thing may be a possibility with Palin's use of the term "censorship."
Those problems would not exist had the person said "material that is inappropriate for children as defined by various laws and court cases" instead of "p()rn."
So when you say, "Her actions as a public official to threaten censorship not only can be revealed publicly, they must be," while that is strictly correct, we have no evidence that her use of the word "censorship" was meant in a strict sense. As a matter of fact, we have evidence to the contrary. Palin called it a "rhetorical" question.
There's even another issue about this. If her use of the term "censorship" was meant to convey the removal from the public library of material that is legal to remove for one reason or another, then again she was using the term "censorship" loosely; censorship is impossible where the material removed is legally removed.
(Then there's a separate issue I won't address here of whether it is "censorship" at all if a library removes something that is available everywhere else in the world, like one library removed Dr. Seuss's "The Lorax." That is not "censorship." That is, however, how the ALA defines it to promotes its agenda, but it is not censorship.)
Since we have absolutely no clue from the evidence as to what she had in mind when she asked her "rhetorical" question, we have no basis whatsoever to conclude her "actions as a public official to threaten censorship" were actually actions as a public official to threaten censorship.
Lastly, remember what Dan Gerstein said, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." Dan Gerstein is an independent consultant and former communications director and senior strategist for Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign.
Now you're just being conveniently disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that using the term p0rn to describe things that are, in fact, NOT p0rn is a deliberate misconstruction designed to win the fight, not an innocent, overbroad use of terminology. Likewise, saying that Sarah Palin didn't mean censorship when she said censorship is a deliberate attempt to cloud the argument.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, the policy you quoted explicitly refers to Internet users, not to political officials having a discussion with a librarian. In all aspects, you fail to back up your own argument.
Naomi, thanks for commenting. Your comments that are ad hominem in nature are incorrect and will not otherwise be addressed by me.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, as you say, don't tell me you think a political official is exempt in this case. It was the library itself that made up these rules. It was the library itself that is so strict that it even publicly announces it will refuse to honor legal process. Yet it appears in its own political interests, the privacy/confidentiality rules, as strict as they are, go right out the window.
Mind you, I am saying it appears this way, not that it is. That is why an investigation here may be warranted. We need more information. And the sooner it comes, the sooner people might stop using ad hominem argument for their own political reasons that have nothing to do with the facts.
Remember I said on September 1 that "Time will tell if this erroneous statement will be the start of a false rumor"? Little did I know how prescient this would be. For the very next day, September 2, time told, as in Time magazine.
ReplyDeleteQuote:
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.
Source:
"Mayor Palin: A Rough Record," by Nathan Thornburgh, Time, 2 September 2008.
So you got a librarian revealing something she maybe should not have giving her own library's aggressive policies, you have blogs blowing it up into something it isn't, then you have the mainstream media reporting what the blogs are saying as if it were the truth. Actually, Time makes it sound even more omininous and threatening.
Time, told, alright. And it appears it may have told a lie. Time did not reveal its source for this, but it is curious that it calls Mary Ellen Emmons by the name of Mary Ellen Baker, and even more curious that it bypasses the "censorship" lie altogether and goes straight for the throat by talking about "book banning."
Book banning!! Hasn't been done in the USA in many decades. Removing materials for lawful reasons is not banning, though the ALA claims it is.
But Time is reporting without balance Palin's former political opponent as claiming, "She asked the library how she could go about banning books...." "The librarian was aghast."
It is really amazing to me to see in this small microcosm how lies get bigger and badder as time/Time goes on. Is it any wonder such media outlets are shrinking alarmingly?
And the cycle continues like a chain unbroken. Here's a rather significant librarian blog picking up on the Time smear and passing it along to the library community generally saying, "What will librarians do now with an actual candidate with a record such as this?":
ReplyDelete"Palin's Record with Libraries Called Into Question," by Sarah Houghton-Jan, LibrarianInBlack.net, 2 September 2008.
What "record"? What blogs and Time are saying about her for political purposes?
At least this blogger appears open minded saying, "I will be interested to hear if more comes out about it, especially from the librarian, Ms. Baker." Me too. Hence my call for an investigation.
And an even bigger librarian blog is repeating the Time smear:
ReplyDelete"Sarah Palin, VP Nominee," by Jessamyn West, Librarian.net, 2 September 2008.
Let me add that this repetition of the Time smear is almost assuredly innocent. I doubt the librarian bloggers are aware of how the smear started, took flight, and how they are now helping to broadcast it. But that's how this type of smear works, and that's part of the damages resulting from the initial harm, if that's what an investigation reveals.
In the next link in the chain, this time from the Librarian.Net blog, the smear has gone international. See how this works?
ReplyDelete"I am in Australia and hopefully we are immune from this type of conservative Christian fundementalism. .... It surprises me that a country which was founded on a revolution based on freedom of thought and espression has senior politicians that want to ban books in a library, and sack the librarian for doing her job."
"Sarah Palin and the Librarian," by The Accidental Australian, 3 September 2008.
Here is what I added (if allowed) to that blog:
Hi. What you have read on that blog is, through no fault of the blogger, a total smear job. The media in the USA is outright smearing Sarah Palin in a number of ways, including attacking her children, and this book banning claim is just one more arrow in the quiver of misinformation.
The facts are totally different that what you have been led to believe. Further, they are very sketchy, so really no conclusion can be made at all at this time. I think further investigation is needed.
But let's be clear. The Time magazine story is a political hit job, the effectiveness of which is evidenced by what you said here.
Look again at that Librarian.Net blog I cited above. I'll have to give it credit here in that while some people were doing the usual spewing of false information claiming Sarah Palin is a book banner, other librarians caught them in lies. Like finding that books claimed to be banned by her were not even published at that time.
ReplyDeleteSome have even given Sarah Palin credit for asking first before acting!
Congrats, Jessamyn West, for having a fair and balanced group of commenters.
And the chain is complete. Now the ALA Council is sending around messages with links to articles that talk about "Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship." See, for example, here (James Casey; 3 Sep 2008) and here (Charlotte Glover; 3 Sep 2008).
ReplyDeleteMost interestingly, at least to me, the very same ALA Councilor, James Casey, who is spreading this Sarah Palin misinformation to other ALA Councilors, also used my own SafeLibraries.org as an example of the effectiveness of media manipulation to ensure ALA control over local libraries. See "ALA Admits Media Manipulation - Endnote Hyperlinks Provided for St. Louis MetroVoice Cover Story by SafeLibraries" and the link cited therein.
In my original blog post on this topic, I said, "I wondered how long it would take for the American Library Association to have something bad to say about her." Now we have our answer, and I have fully documented here how the ALA smear machine works. It took just a few days for the ALA smear machine to begin cranking out the misinformation.
I was hoping I would not have to report this as I am an ALA member. Truly it saddens me that the ALA is acting, again, in such a political manner (like when the ALA defamed our armed forces in Guantanamo Bay). I hope its 501(c)(3) status is not challenged for this.
Indeed its 501(c)(3) status is being questioned, by its own members! The ALA President had to issue an "Immediate Release" to quell the controversy within the ALA Council!
ReplyDeleteSee my new blog on this topic, "ALA Smears Sarah Palin With False Censorship Claims."
"And the chain is complete. Now the ALA Council is sending around messages with links to articles that talk about "Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship." "
ReplyDeleteContinuing the Propaganda 101 lesson...
This is an example of the power of pre-framing the debate to appear to be something other than it is. What it IS, is a move by a professional organization to counter dis-information of the sort you are vending to the public. What you make it out to be, in light of your other writings here, is the resolution of a nefarious plan to sell smut to our children. This sort of language shift is straight out of the Faux "news" playbook. Good job -- you'll be a top-notch propagandist in no time!
"Most interestingly, at least to me, the very same ALA Councilor, James Casey, who is spreading this Sarah Palin misinformation to other ALA Councilors, also used my own SafeLibraries.org as an example of the effectiveness of media manipulation to ensure ALA control over local libraries. See "ALA Admits Media Manipulation - Endnote Hyperlinks Provided for St. Louis MetroVoice Cover Story by SafeLibraries" and the link cited therein."
This is so logically scrambled that it's unparsible, safelibraries. There may be some actual sense in there, but I can't find it; nor does following the links help much. When you include the claim that the ALA "admits" to media manipulation (and then back off that statement completely, by adding "not in so many words, of course"), one is left with the distinct impression that you prefer to winnow the actual evidence and present, in isolation, only the bits that will support your position (but only if your reader is uninformed to start with, and doesn't bother to find out the whole story for him/herself).
You attempt to reframe the real case (librarians standing up for open access to literature) to be something evil (a conspiracy by librarians, seeking to corrupt teens). The cases don't match; therefore as time goes on, your arguments must drift farther and farther from reality. Buttressing your flawed position becomes an exercise in redefining words (maybe that librarian didn't actually mean "censorship," but something more vague?) and creating mutually exclusive scenarios and motivations, meant not to link into a clear whole, but to provide momentary cover for your position by fogging the real issues.
You lose your audience, when making baseless accusations becomes more important than consistency of position and story, and the use of actual logic.
""In my original blog post on this topic, I said, "I wondered how long it would take for the American Library Association to have something bad to say about her." Now we have our answer, and I have fully documented here how the ALA smear machine works."
And this is what it brings you to -- claiming that the predictable fact that the ALA will defend itself against your sort of accusation, is some sort of "evidence" that your accusation is based on fact. You have neither proved, not "documented" anything like what you claim, and (still) have no basis to call the ALA's attempts to clarify the issues and defend themselves a "smear machine."
YOU are running the real "smear machine," here.
"And the chain is complete. Now the ALA Council is sending around messages with links to articles that talk about "Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship." "
ReplyDeleteContinuing the Propaganda 101 lesson...
This is an example of the power of pre-framing the debate to appear to be something other than it is. What it IS, is a move by a professional organization to counter dis-information of the sort you are vending to the public. What you make it out to be, in light of your other writings here, is the resolution of a nefarious plan to sell smut to our children. This sort of language shift is straight out of the Faux "news" playbook. Good job -- you'll be a top-notch propagandist in no time!
"Most interestingly, at least to me, the very same ALA Councilor, James Casey, who is spreading this Sarah Palin misinformation to other ALA Councilors, also used my own SafeLibraries.org as an example of the effectiveness of media manipulation to ensure ALA control over local libraries. See "ALA Admits Media Manipulation - Endnote Hyperlinks Provided for St. Louis MetroVoice Cover Story by SafeLibraries" and the link cited therein."
This is so logically scrambled that it's unparsible, safelibraries. There may be some actual sense in there, but I can't find it; nor does following the links help much. When you include the claim that the ALA "admits" to media manipulation (and then back off that statement completely, by adding "not in so many words, of course"), one is left with the distinct impression that you prefer to winnow the actual evidence and present, in isolation, only the bits that will support your position (but only if your reader is uninformed to start with, and doesn't bother to find out the whole story for him/herself).
You attempt to reframe the real case (librarians standing up for open access to literature) to be something evil (a conspiracy by librarians, seeking to corrupt teens). The cases don't match; therefore as time goes on, your arguments must drift farther and farther from reality. Buttressing your flawed position becomes an exercise in redefining words (maybe that librarian didn't actually mean "censorship," but something more vague?) and creating mutually exclusive scenarios and motivations, meant not to link into a clear whole, but to provide momentary cover for your position by fogging the real issues.
You lose your audience, when making baseless accusations becomes more important than consistency of position and story, and the use of actual logic.
""In my original blog post on this topic, I said, "I wondered how long it would take for the American Library Association to have something bad to say about her." Now we have our answer, and I have fully documented here how the ALA smear machine works."
And this is what it brings you to -- claiming that the predictable fact that the ALA will defend itself against your sort of accusation, is some sort of "evidence" that your accusation is based on fact. You have neither proved, not "documented" anything like what you claim, and (still) have no basis to call the ALA's attempts to clarify the issues and defend themselves a "smear machine."
YOU are running the real "smear machine," here.
LighteningJoe:
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a lot. I guess I got your goat. I'm about to get it more.
My comments about the ALA are right on target. The remarks about the claimed Palin "censorship" have resulting in the ALA itself questioning itself, not me. It is reevaluating its 501(c)(3) status, not me. The ALA President himself had to halt the bleeding with an "Immediate Release," not me. See ALA President Jim Rettig Releases Statement on Censorship.
I have not "pre-framed the debate to appear to be something other than it is," as you say. The debate is going on amongst the ALA Council. I am merely a spectator, like you. I am watching as the councilors go back and forth over whether the ALA has violated its tax exempt status because of James Casey's comments, not mine. So if there is any "sort of language shift straight out of the Faux 'news' playbook," as you say, it is not mine.
As to James Casey, I am sorry you did not understand what I wrote. Let me break it down for you. James Casey made statements where it appears he supported the censorship in communist/terrorist regimes of material produced by the American government. He said that, not me. James Casey then said the way to get what you want is to manipulate the media. He said that, not me. James Casey then said what he said about Sarah Palin that may have jeopardized the ALA's 501(c)(3) status. He said that, not me. Only this time this statements may result in the ALA losing money, so this time the ALA President was forced to rein him in. The ALA President did that, not me.
As to your claim that I "prefer to winnow the actual evidence and present, in isolation, only the bits that will support your position," you neglect to mention that it is quite the opposite. Instead of "winnowing" anything, instead of "presenting in isolation only bits that support my position," I provide many links to the source documents that I quote. If I were to include it all, it would be even longer and more boring. So, like everyone else, I cite the relevant parts. But unlike some, I link to the source documents themselves to prove the truth of the matters I assert. Frankly, I could not make this stuff up. I require reliable sources. I consider anything on the ALA web site to be authoritative with respect to statements made by the ALA. If an ALA Councilor speaks out of line and it appears on the ALA web site, I am entitled to quote it, or reference it, or link to it. They said it, not me.
Really, I do that with the exact purpose of precluding the kinds of false claims you are now making against me. Remember, since you are talking about "Propaganda 101," one of the first rules of propaganda is to attack the messenger. You get an A+ in attacking the messenger.
So my arguments are not "baseless." On the other hand, they are sometimes (rarely) prescient, in that I have predicted the ALA would get involved in the Palin matter, and that it might violate 501(c)(3) rules. It did that, both, not me. It is not my fault the ALA fulfilled my prediction. I am not a propagandist for reporting what the ALA has done, and what anyone can see for themselves by looking at the links I provide on the ALA's own web site.
You said I "still have no basis to call the ALA's attempts to clarify the issues and defend themselves a 'smear machine.'" Now you are using another form of propaganda, namely, making it appear I said things I did not. I did not say the ALA would defend themselves as a smear machine. I said the ALA might act as one and that it might get them in trouble. And that is *exactly* what happened. That is *exactly* why the ALA president had to get involved. The ALA did this, not me.
So your attempt make me the target has failed. I merely report on the ALA's activities, and I provide links to support my claims. If you cannot follow the links, let me know and I'll see if I can fix the problem.
As always, thank you for writing here.
This looks relevant and seems to confirm the whole gist of this blog post:
ReplyDelete"Palin: Democrats Spreading Misinformation and Lies, by Sara Kugler, AP, 4 September 2008.
Again, safelibraries, you assert your rectitude, when the "evidence" you provide does absolutely nothing to back your assertions.
ReplyDeleteHere's an example of your re-framing:
"The remarks about the claimed Palin "censorship" have resulting in the ALA itself questioning itself, not me. It is reevaluating its 501(c)(3) status, not me. The ALA President himself had to halt the bleeding with an "Immediate Release," not me. See ALA President Jim Rettig Releases Statement on Censorship."
You includeded a link that contains absolutely nothing like the "questioning itself" you claim it does. And it's less than meaningless to note that the ALA's press release was slated for "Immediate Release," as this is the du-rigeur status of ANY press release, denoting that it has been cleared for distribution to the press at large. To re-define such boilerplate language as some sort of desperate gambit to "halt the bleeding" is disengenuous and wishful on your part. The ALA has a congenial and coherent stance on the issue of censorship, and your attempts to define that stance as a plot against our children have no merit.
And now...
"James Casey made statements where it appears he supported the censorship in communist/terrorist regimes of material produced by the American government. He said that, not me."
Um... No, he did not say that. YOU were the one who made the interpretation that "it appeared that" Mr. Casey supported censorship in despotic regimes. Given the record of your "interpretations" so far, how can you expect anyone to accept your statement as an indictment of Casey, rather than just what it is: you reframing someone else's words to fit your own agenda?
And your blast at Charlotte Glover is so far off base that it belies a rational response, but I'll do my best.
Charlotte Glover is the children's librarian at my own local branch; and I can personally witness that no one in the world cares more about the quality of library service to kids than she does, and that includes the issue you say you care most about: that a library is a safe place for children to access information about the world. I see Charlotte every week. She is an open and principled person who cares deeply about what she does, and about the implications of free library access.
Badmouth Charlotte Glover, and you'll have all of Ketchikan, Alaska arrayed against you.
"You said I "still have no basis to call the ALA's attempts to clarify the issues and defend themselves a 'smear machine.'" Now you are using another form of propaganda, namely, making it appear I said things I did not. I did not say the ALA would defend themselves as a smear machine."
It may be an honest mis-reading on your part, but your interpretation here, of what I said, is not at all accurate. Add a comma after my own "defend themselves," above, and it may be clear what I meant. Obviously, the ALA will NOT be defending themselves AS a "smear machine." They are only trying to defend their own ethical conduct, against smears by you and yours.
You know, I'm forced to a few conclusions about you.
First, that a "safe" library, according to you, is one in which no information you disagree with will be available for public perusal. In case you haven't noticed, this is America, where you don't get your way all the time, because other people's choices must also be respected. The impulse to control others' information and perceptions is an oligarch (if not fascist) instinct, that has no place in this country. If you don't want your children to have access to certain published information, then YOU have to bite the bullet, and do the screening yourself.
My second conclusion is that you just don't "get" Freedom. Freedom will not tolerate intolerance. It can't encompass the instinct to limit access to information, based on a personal dislike of the implications of said information.
Rather freedom is, simply and exactly, what the ALA is supporting: open access to information, for all those who seek it out. It's the opportunity to look for and find the information you want, exempt from the censoring instinct pushed by people like safelibraries.org.
"So your attempt make me the target has failed."
It ain't me doing it, babe. You're making yourself a target, by speaking out against freedom of access to information. You can say what you like (of course), but don't expect people to fall for your line. And don't think that they won't tell you what they think about your tactics.
As for your last link, to "Palin: Democrats Spreading Misinformation and Lies,", it has nothing at all in it relating to libraries or censorship. It's about Palin's largely pro-active complaints concerning the Democratic response to her nomination.
"You includeded a link that contains absolutely nothing like the 'questioning itself' you claim it does" Right, I included the link, but to show the "Immediate Release," not the "questioning itself."
ReplyDelete"And it's less than meaningless to note that the ALA's press release was slated for 'Immediate Release,' as this is the du-rigeur status of ANY press release" You may be right. So let me say if you look at the time stamps on the ALA Council messages, they are flying fast and furious about 501(c)(3), in several different threads at the same time, no less, and this high rate of activity is not typical, in my experience. Then out comes the president's statement, and the volume drops to zero. Nada. For quite a while. It was obvious the president's message was put out immediately in reaction to and as an attempt to shut down the speech on the ALA Council list.
Indeed at least one councilor complained about this very thing, so this is not just my opinion. This councilor said, (and I won't link it here as this is just a comment in response to ad hominem remarks) "the ALA executive's campaign of organizational censorship [is] a pre-emptive attempt to avoid the wrath of those who would try to use the tax code to punish organizations which an administation or party does not favor." The ALA said it, not me.
You said, "To re-define such boilerplate language as some sort of desperate gambit to 'halt the bleeding' is disengenuous and wishful on your part. The ALA has a congenial and coherent stance on the issue of censorship, and your attempts to define that stance as a plot against our children have no merit." Apart from the last phrase that I am not sure how you get to that, what you have said here is absolutely false as evidenced in the above statement I just quoted. Again, the ALA said it, not me.
Then you go on about James Casey.
You know what? My kid wants to play with me know and I tire of responding again and again to you where it has become obvious that each and every attempt of yours to derail my arguments has been proven false. I'll just assume the remainder of your arguments are as poor and weakly constructed as those here and in your previous comments. I won't even read the rest of your comment right now.
I do appreciate the time you took to respond, but my kid is more important than constantly refuting you. Given you have been 100% wrong except on trivial matters, I'll just assume you'll continue to be 100% wrong and go play with my kid. In fact I won't even proofread this, so forgive my errors.
Thanks again for writing.
I simply do not see where you get that I "blasted" Charlotte Glover. "Badmouth Charlotte Glover, and you'll have all of Ketchikan, Alaska arrayed against you." Ah, the politics of personal destruction.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Where? I never "blasted" her. All I said was "Now the ALA Council is sending around messages with links to articles that talk about 'Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship.' See, for example, here (James Casey; 3 Sep 2008) and here (Charlotte Glover; 3 Sep 2008)." The problem here has always been James Casey. The Charlotte Glover message was only included as a contemporaneous response to James Casey to show an example of the effects of his actions.
Besides, look at the text of her message. "Point taken on the politics. Honestly, I wasn't thinking about influencing your vote only to say that the facts speak for themselves and that you need to know that they are indeed, facts, and not tabloid gossip. You can verify everything I've told you and make up your own minds by searching the archives of the Anchorage Daily News who have covered the story since Palin was first elected Mayor of Wasilla in 1997." What's wrong with that? I am sure everything she said is verifiable, as she says, and the things did not say likely comprise the "tabloid gossip" she references. So I see no problem with that at all.
Sheesh, LighteningJoe, you'll look for anything, or make it up, to try to put me down. Now that I know you are likely one of the people in Sarah Palin's area who likely opposed her, that gives me a fresh perspective on why you have been working so hard, writing so much, to make it appear I am making things up.
And you know what? When I expose ruse after ruse of yours, when I back up each statement you question, you just move on to the next attack. There's never an acknowledgment, not once, that I have adequately responded to your false accusations. Like when I pointed out a councilor said, "the ALA executive's campaign of organizational censorship [is] a pre-emptive attempt to avoid the wrath of those who would try to use the tax code to punish organizations which an administation or party does not favor," you had gone on and on about how I made up the whole thing, or something like that. But there it is. The ALA said it, not me.
I include it to show the basis for my statements, and you just ignore that I proved you wrong and go on and on about how Ketchikan is arrayed against me.
My father and mother lived in Alaska for years. From the stories I hear about the great people of Alaska, I doubt Ketchikan is arrayed against me because you are throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks and nothing's sticking. Ketchikan citizens have a lot more sense than that.
LighteningJoe, why don't you reveal who you are? Your profile shows it was created only a few days ago and only one other person looked at your profile. There are no other details I could see at this time.
ReplyDeleteYour failure to reveal who you are is very revealing in and of itself. It is much easier to throw mud from behind the curtain of anonymity.
Just to point out again how LightningJoe's long and frequent claims against me are false, and how I have been ahead of the curve on this, read "Can ALA Councilors Discuss Palin? Consternation and Caution," by Norman Oder, Library Journal, 4 September 2008.
ReplyDeleteI was right on target! Even right down to the Charlotte Glover quotes that the Library Journal also quotes. Remember LighteningJoe threatened me about that? Remember Ketchikan? Well now he can also threaten the Library Journal. Perhaps LighteningJoe will tell the Library Journal that, "The impulse to control others' information and perceptions is an oligarch (if not fascist) instinct, that has no place in this country."
Whoa! Look at this comment from a Library Journal blog!!!
ReplyDeleteSeptember 5, 2008
In response to: Report: Palin, as Mayor, Raised Library Censorship Issue Three Times
Jessica commented:
I frankly think, that the amount of psychotic blogging in the past few days is appalling. We are seeing an unprecedented smear campaign orchestrated by the like of the Daily Kos on behalf of the Obama campaign and that is what really should scare people. Palin was inundated with requests from some local citizens about removing some books which were unsuitable for children or putting them in a section controlled by the librarian. Palin simply asked about the issue in open forum responding to citizen requests like a mayor is supposed to do. It seems by all records that the library response was to immediately be combative and defensive which is what led to further problems. Palin never actually took further steps to ban books. On the contrary, if you in fact love the free expression of views in all forms, then why is it that Obama seeks to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine of censorship and ban other books from school libraries which take contrary views to his? First we heard that she really didn't have a baby and that she was covering for her daughter....then we were told by the same left wing zealots that she had an affair with her husband's business partner, then we told she was a member of a secessionist movement...the lies continue, so be careful how far you're willing to run with them.
Source: "Report: Palin, as Mayor, Raised Library Censorship Issue Three Times," by Norman Oder, Library Journal, 4 September 2008.
"Open forum"!!!! "[T]he library response was to immediately be combative and defensive which is what led to further problems"!!!!
As I said in the title of this blog post, "An Investigation of Library's Action May Be Warranted."
Getting a bit scrambled here, with all the quotes of quotes, but I'll try to keep it straight...
ReplyDeleteYour pro-censorship bias seems to require that you defend Sarah Palin's actions, regarding the disputed censorship request and subsequent firing of the Wasilla Head Librarian.
To this end, you look for information that superficially supports your premise that Palin is being wronged by the current focus on her pursuit of library censorship in Wasilla.
I note that Jessica's comment cites no actual records, and that it was posted in response to a post that contains NUMEROUS cites to REAL records asserting the opposite of Jessica's allegations.
So yes, you found Jessica's comment on the LJ blog site, containing her incendiary opinions about the events in question and the motivations of the questioners of those events, not to mention their very sanity.
And yes, the words you cite would cause an unwary reader to be wonder as to the accuracy of the reporting and the personal accounts seen thus far.
But reading Jessica's comment with a wider focus, brings up several reasons to wonder about her bias and tactics.
Start with Jessica's characterization of the Palin-questioning blogging of the past few days as "psychotic." This is a clinical and common-use term, in both cases meaning "not connected to reality." If this is so -- that the allegations against Palin have no basis at all in fact -- then it should be a simple matter to show that there is no record that supports the allegations. In this case, one does NOT have to prove a negative to do such a thing; because the Palin accusers can be counted on to do their best to find those records that support their point -- as they have. If they could find nothing at all, then there IS no evidence. But as we've seen, there is evidence, in the form of personal testimony from those involved, and newspaper coverage about the events, that supports those personal reports.
Anyone with an opinion WHO WAS NOT THERE, must be judged less reliable than someone who was there. Jessica, reading between her words, was not at the meeting in question.
I have perused (some of) the KOS posts on this subject, and I invite anyone to -- please! -- point out the demonstrably untrue allegations in any of them. Most of the KOS comments and posts do not in fact deal with assertions at all; but simply raise questions we need answers to.
True, the line between assertion and questioning can at times become blurred, in a forum open to the public at large, but expressing concern about basic rights and reported (even attempted) violations of them is not "pychotic," but rational and responsible. What is a blog for, but to address issues of concern?
Likewise, pursuit of the truth behind reports such as these, is not in itself a "smear" -- even though it may feel that way to a person who would like to see the subject dropped.
The comment you cite then goes on to dig its hole even deeper, baldly asserting that Barack Obama has proposed reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, when he has said exactly nothing on that score at all. Surely this alone calls into question the bias and/or sources of information of the commenter.
If I'm wrong about any of this, I invite you to correct me (good luck!).
What I'm pointing out, is that the post by Jessica has some critical shortcomings, regarding adherence to truth.
Allowing for Jessica's more or less evident bias toward Palin, don't you think we should also examine her use of words such as "inundated?" -- just how many citizen opinions IS that, to a Palin supporter?
And perhaps we ought to question her reading of what Palin "simply asked" as well; since Jessica herself was evidently NOT at the meeting in question, judging by the fact that she (implied she) referred to "all records" to find her information?
But believing Palin's version doesn't make things simpler (occam's test). Palin said that her letter to Emmons asking for her resignation was just a "loyalty test," but that premise raises a certain logical difficulty. How does asking for someone's resignation, test their "loyalty?" The employee who gets the letter really doesn't have a choice, do they? The most "loyal" act in response would be to resign as the mayor has asked them, and not to challenge the firing. (Emmons, remember, did not officially challenge her termination; an outpouring of citizen sentiment did that). So, a person "passes" the "loyalty test" by not complaining, or what? Illogical, Captain.
And -- pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but why in the world would a mayor require "loyalty" of a librarian? Librarians serve people, not mayors.
Any loyalty a librarian holds toward a city official can only be a personal sentiment, not a professional one, and therefore should never enter into a firing decision concerning that person. I understand that so-called "at will" employment allows such things, but only by way of not requiring an explanation of the firing (I don't think anyone believes that Palin fired people literally for no reason -- It's just that her actual reasons are in question, regarding whether they related to the librarian's denial of Palin's reputed censorship query.)
I saw that you left Jessica a note on that forum, to contact you with some sort of assurance as to her assertions, and I salute you on that score. I'm sure you'll let us in on the (actual) facts as they develop.
I want to know, too.
"LightningJoe, why don't you reveal who you are? Your profile shows it was created only a few days ago and only one other person looked at your profile. There are no other details I could see at this time.
ReplyDeleteYour failure to reveal who you are is very revealing in and of itself. It is much easier to throw mud from behind the curtain of anonymity.
"
ExcUuuse me? "Revealing" of what? Of the interpretation you chose to ascribe to it?
Do we know jae-kae's real name, or even cliff's? You yourself are in this list as safelibraries.org. Do we now care about such things? I thought we were here for a discussion, not to strip off the shield of anonymity that lets us express our real thoughts. Who exactly I am, by name, has nothing to do with the validity of my opinions. Furthermore, revealing my name-identity would potentially expose me to retaliation for my views. This is not just paranoia -- my progressive views are decidedly not in the mainstream where I live, and I've been denied employment on that score.
BTW, I never saw where you revealed your own identity to anyone on this thread. Perhaps you did, but I never saw it in this response list. You are known to some here as "Dan," and I came across a last name also, in your response to Jessica's comment in the Library Journal forum.
I complement you (in a way) on your willingness to let the world know who you actually are, but don't assume that we all want to surrender our web-anonimity that easily.
There are some good reasons for keeping our real-world names close to our vests; not the least of which are the government's recurring attempts to quantify the web in terms of legal identities. Given the direction our government has been moving, over the last decades, in regard to free speech and confinement-without-representation or rights, I consider such precautions to be only reasonable.
So no -- I will not lay my legal identity out on this table for all to see.
And... Are you REALLY holding up my reluctance to expose my street address, phone number, et al, to all eyes, as being tantamount to shiftiness or dishonesty?
Revealing my name means that all other info about me is also available -- to the government, if not to others. As a responsible web user, I take various measures to limit that exposure, as should we all.
Are you aware that the Department of Homeland "Security" has funded data-mining operations in most states? They are mostly out of the hands of state officials, being run by private contractors, who are not directly accountable to either state or federal officials for their actions, or for what they do with the information -- or who they sell it to -- despite their being funded by the feds.
In such an information environment, I don't expose anything I don't have to; because the days when people forgot such information over time, are gone for good. With data-mining techniques, every name anywhere can be, and probably is, on a list somewhere; and it will stay on that list, for anyone who can access it later, to use it for whatever motives they may have. Anonymity has become a valuable resource, not to be squandered.
Given the direction our country is going, I'll continue to use my own discretion about my personal identity.
However, in the interest of filling you in about my philosophical identity, you can go to my blog site:
www.lightningjoe.blog-city.com ( note: lightningjoe, not light[e]ningjoe )
I'm not such a frequent poster, but you'll get the gist. I DON'T imagine you'll agree with many of my sentiments...
Well, LightningJoe, that was long. I don't think it needs a response as is has nothing to do with the issues at hand, namely, the need for an investigation into this matter.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I caught you actually complimenting me! You said, "I saw that you left Jessica a note on that forum, to contact you with some sort of assurance as to her assertions, and I salute you on that score. I'm sure you'll let us in on the (actual) facts as they develop. I want to know, too."
Bingo. That's what I have been asking for. More information. Reliable sources. A proper investigation.
Thanks for noticing, finally, that's what I'm doing. And since you want to know too, it appears you agree with my original assertion after all, namely, more investigation is needed.
In return, I'll agree with you somewhat about that anonymity issue.
"
ReplyDeleteBingo. That's what I have been asking for. More information. Reliable sources. A proper investigation.
"
Why sure, moi aussie. What's thrown me though, is that you seemed to question whether there's even an issue to investigate.
Nothing personal, but that attitude, when its real (an it often seems to be) is just what we don't need, when evaluating, under time pressure, the character of the person in question Palin. People asking questions are being scapegoated and labeled "rabid attack dogs" or worse. Their sanity is being questioned, just because the answers they've heard so far don't measure up to the relevant questions they ask, so they keep asking.
We DO need to know how this woman works, and as an Alaskan, I've wondered about that very question for a long time now. And knowing how tight Sarah is with her own personal information, I'd say Americans need to focus and push at this question, or they will never get the answers.
Sarah has shown already, that she prefers to both hide unfavorable information, and to revise the past when she can. just as other high-profile Republicans are prone to do, in my experience.
Look at this. It looks like we are ending up friends after all that. I bet in real life we would be, and would enjoy spirited conversation.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's still a valid question as to why the library policy specifically says it will not comply with legal process. That should be examined as well. Do Wasilla people really want the library not to comply with legal process?
The library is complaining about Palin supposedly not complying with the law, while library policy specifically says it will not comply with the law. And the way the library did this may have violated its own policy. It is possible the library may be acting outside the law that created the library in the first place. Three wrongs make a right? This needs investigation.
Really, I'm scratching my head over this possible double standard. Triple standard?
I just posted this on another blog post ("ABOUT LIBRARIANS AGAINST PALIN!") and liked it so much I'm reprinting it here:
ReplyDelete....
Listen, while I am writing to you, you called Sarah Palin a “government official who attempted to ban books.” I just don’t see how asking a librarian about the issue equates to attempting to ban books.
Let’s say the library removed the books. Then the library would have done the removing, not Sarah Palin.
And I refuse to accept the library would have removed the books at Sarah Palin’s request blindly. The library has a policy that specifies it will “resist” legal process. I doubt it would do what Sarah Palin said if it is willing to defy legal process.
"
ReplyDeleteListen, while I am writing to you, you called Sarah Palin a “government official who attempted to ban books.” I just don’t see how asking a librarian about the issue equates to attempting to ban books.
Let’s say the library removed the books. Then the library would have done the removing, not Sarah Palin.
And I refuse to accept the library would have removed the books at Sarah Palin’s request blindly. The library has a policy that specifies it will “resist” legal process. I doubt it would do what Sarah Palin said if it is willing to defy legal process.
"
So say I try to get you to do something that you don't think is okay, and you decline to do so. And then I fire you, saying that you "aren't supportive" of me.
Will you see a pattern in those actions, or are you going to think that at one time, I asked you to violate your ethical standards and you refused. Then, at some other point in time, I fired you out of the blue, and you with no clue whatsoever what you might be doing that wasn't "supportive" of me?
It's obvious that the actions are connected, but you seem to think that a superior asking a subordinate to do something wrong, carries about the same ethical weight as if she were talking to herself in the mirror.
Sarah chews on a problem until it dies, say those who know her. Such a person is never going to forget either what she asked, or what the response was, and she won't miss her chance to do something about her problem. Sarah sees the patterns.
And sorry, but I can't credit your statement that the library's policy directs it to resist -- in whatever fashion -- any legal process whatsoever. It literally COULD NOT have such a directive in its charter; not and be an accredited institution.
But then, I haven't read the policy in question, as you obviously have. Since you're an ALA member, you may know where I could go to check the wording of that policy statement?
I suspect that it says something to the effect of making sure that warrants are in order before allowing records searches, and directs librarians to resist searches that are not in order, or are not yet confirmed as being in order.
This is exactly the judgement and commitment I want from my librarian, and I have immense respect for those few who have had to stand up to illegal search attempts.
And that other piece of logic you're so proud of --
"
Let’s say the library removed the books. Then the library would have done the removing, not Sarah Palin.
"
Exactly. She asked them to perform an act that would make them legally liable. That's why the library's policies directed them to resist her proposal. You think this proves something besides what I (for instance) have been saying?
Lots of the fog seems to center around the concept that Palin's question about taking the book(s) off the shelves was "rhetorical."
ReplyDeleteThat's Palin's claim on the subject, and many seem to have accepted that term, at least provisionally.
But let's look at it. How would you ask a "rhetorical" question about banning a book?
"Just hypothetically, mind, but how do I go about getting some books pulled off the shelves?"
"If I were to ask you to, say, to lock up some of your books, what would be your response?"
"I've been meaning to talk to you about some things. There's that cracked drinking fountain in the lobby, and didn't you need a new sidewalk? Oh, and I'd like you to look at this list my church gave me, of books they don't like."
You know, I just don't think that the word "rhetorical" could really describe the impression in the mind of a working librarian when an immediate query is posed, on how to go about banning books.
Furthermore, the more I learn about Sarah Palin (and I still have a small head start), the less she seems given to rhetorical anything, unless it's throwing out speaking-points soundbites.
LightningJoe:
ReplyDeleteI have seen no original source conclusively tying the book discussion to the firing of the library director. On the other hand, I have seen original sources say the firing was for the librarian's support of the other candidate. Further, it would be ridiculous to fire the library director for the reason you and the bloggers say since the problem lies with the library board, if the problem existed, and not the library director. The library board would only get a new director to implement the library board's same policy. So is Sarah Palin supposed to fire a neverending string of library directors? Of course not. And I know of no instance where any other library person was fired for not "banning" books. The claim made by you and others that Palin fired the director for not banning books is patently false.
Oh, and I love this that you said, "And sorry, but I can't credit your statement that the library's policy directs it to resist -- in whatever fashion -- any legal process whatsoever. It literally COULD NOT have such a directive in its charter; not and be an accredited institution."
Thank you, LightningJoe, for apparently agreeing with me again, only I was just asking questions, where as you are more conclusive: "It literally COULD NOT have such a directive in its charter; not and be an accredited institution."
Here's the proof, and get out the digitalis, you may need it:
"Confidentiality: Any information that identifies Internet users with specific materials or subject matter is considered confidential. Such records shall not be made available to any agency of local, state or federal government except pursuant to such process, order or subpoena as may be authorized under the authority of federal, state or local law relating to criminal, civil or administrative discovery procedures or legislative investigatory power. Wasilla Public Library resists the issuance or enforcement of any such process, order or subpoena until such time as proper showing of good cause has been made in court of competent jurisdiction.."
LightningJoe, are you starting to see the light?
safelibraries, you're not a lawyer, are you?
ReplyDelete"Confidentiality: Any information that identifies Internet users with specific materials or subject matter is considered confidential. Such records shall not be made available to any agency of local, state or federal government except pursuant to such process, order or subpoena as may be authorized under the authority of federal, state or local law relating to criminal, civil or administrative discovery procedures or legislative investigatory power. Wasilla Public Library resists the issuance or enforcement of any such process, order or subpoena until such time as proper showing of good cause has been made in court of competent jurisdiction.."
"
And what would a "proper showing of good cause" be? And what is a "court of competent jurisdiction?" Because the whole of their "resisting" rests on those fulcrums. They will resist until this condition has been satisfied:
"proper showing of good cause has been made in [a?] court of competent jurisdiction"
So how do we know when a "proper showing of good cause" has been made? Well I don't know exactly, except that it happens in a court of competent jurisdiction; likely in order to obtain a "process, order, or subpoena" -- which we'll just call a warrant, for short.
Like a jurisdictional bearer bond, a warrant carries its own legal search authority, so long as its bearer is legally authorized to serve it. This investment of portable power is why a "proper showing" of cause must be made to a competent court to get one.
Can't have people printing up warrants at Kinko's, now can we?
Now. All searches REQUIRE a warrant. Let me say that again. ALL searches or seizures require some form of legal warrant (unless you've fallen into the NSL black-hole, that is, in which case the "warrant" is the letter). Barring the quite probably unconstitutional NSL's, a search performed without a warrant is by definition an illegal search. As long as someone cannot show a verifiable warrant, obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction, and a valid badge authorizing them to serve it, the proposed search is not in order.
The librarian lucky enough to be in charge at the time such an attempt is made should indeed resist, in defense of patron access confidentiality.
If, on the other hand, a proper showing of good cause HAS been made, as witnessed by the warrant the searching officer presented (and the librarian then verified by phone), then there is nothing at all in the clause requiring "resistance," because the search is a legal one.
All that clause really means is, "Prove you have a valid warrant, and I'll let you have the hard-drives."
Right. But why "resist"?
ReplyDeleteUsing your term "warrant" for convenience, if someone comes in with a warrant, and you look at that warrant and it contains the markings of a legitimate warrant, and it is presented by a legitimate member of law enforcement, then that warrant should be honored without being "resisted."
Is it really a library's place to first confirm that the warrant is valid by calling the court to confirm? Who empowers the library to insert itself in such matters and in such a manner? Can it be considered obstruction of justice?
Where did the "resistance" language come from and how was it inserted into the policy? Is that what the people of Wasilla want? Think. Do Wasilla people want the library to "resist" warrants? Not just you, but the entire community.
I know resisting law enforcement is what the ALA wants because the ALA says so:
"As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws. Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts...."
"The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally."
Let me add this. The ALA advises resisting, no actually defying, the courts in other circumstances. Look:
"Challenged materials that meet the criteria for selection in the materials selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or extra-legal pressure."
Excuse me?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo you knew that, did you? That those words in the charter meant to "resist" UNLAWFULL searches?
ReplyDeleteBut now you seem to be advocating that librarians forego checking out a warrant to determine if it is legal or not. THAT would be a violation of my rights as a patron.
Unless I'm wrong (and I'm writing now, not checking back through a very long thread), that's NOT what you said. You said before, that the charter directed the library to resist LEGAL force.
A search attempted without the proper weight of the law behind it ("show me the warrant, and please wait while I verify it over the telephone") is not a legal search. A search attempted with a warrant that is NOT valid (and there are many reasons why a warrant might not be valid, even after it is issued), is not a legal search, though the serving officer may think it is.
"
Is it really a library's place to first confirm that the warrant is valid by calling the court to confirm? Who empowers the library to insert itself in such matters and in such a manner? Can it be considered obstruction of justice?
"
In a word, yes. And the library is not "inserting itself," but verifying that legal order has been observed. IF a library is to protect a patron's confidentiality, it MUST ensure that a warrant is legal.
Should a professional who knows their duties just take a pass, on performing them as mandated? How many professionals would you excuse on that account? Heavy equipment operators? Airline pilots? Soldiers? Doctors? Law enforcement?
"Yes I know, I'm supposed to go to the judge every time I want to bug a new phone, but it's such a bother, I think I'll skip it this time, and just cite the old warrant." Is this the level of expectation now, in the post-FISA age?
You don't seem to have had much experience with law officers, if you are willing to take it on faith that they would never stretch their mandate. Aren't you aware of the rash of cases overturned because law enforcement overstepped their proper role? In a sense, they are thinking like you. They quite commonly "know" they are right, and think that the rules that enforce their conduct are bothersome in the face of that "truth." Such an attitude sometimes leads to attempts to get around the "obstructions" of due process.
There was just such an attempt recently by law enforcement, to search a library's computer drives for traces of networking by a minor who had gone missing. The librarians "resisted" until a valid warrant was produced, thereby protecting the information on that drive from what would have been an illegal search. The warrant was in process, but was not THERE at the library, as required; and the librarian, thanks to ALA policy, was unable to "waive" the necessity of observing form. If those librarians had allowed the search, before it was verified, they would have been professionally liable.
"
Do Wasilla people want the library to "resist" warrants? Not just you, but the entire community.
"
Use the complete phrase: "Do Wasilla people want the library to "resist" ILLEGAL warrants?" Because that's the ONLY warrant a librarian will resist, under the policy.
Put in context, I think the answer is a resounding "yes." Because that's their own personal information being searched. There had better be valid cause, and it had better have gone through all the proper hoops and loops. Alaskans are nothing if not defensive of their rights.
The reason the bar is (properly) so high for such searches, is that privacy, once violated, cannot be regained. Therefore there had damn better be good reasons for violating it.
"
As for obscenity and child pornography, prosecutors and police have adequate tools to enforce criminal laws. Libraries are not a component of law enforcement efforts....
"
Exactly: LEGAL law enforcement is competent to handle such things on its own. When the enforcement is LEGAL, the library is able to cooperate. Librarians ARE competent to verify if a warrant is legal or not, and that's what we've been discussing, is that verification. That's why they must call the court when they see a warrant. Duh.
"
The applicable statutes and laws, together with the written decisions of courts that have applied them in actual cases, are the only official guides. Libraries and librarians are not in a position to make those decisions for library users or for citizens generally.
"
This only says that librarians should follow the laws.
"
Challenged materials that meet the criteria for selection in the materials selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or extra-legal pressure.
"
In this clause we have what seems, at first blush, to be a contradiction. The LBoR says that "challenged materials... should not be removed under any legal or extra-legal pressure." But the conclusion of the same clause asserts that "[A]ny attempt, be it legal or extra-legal, to regulate or suppress materials in libraries must be closely scrutinized, TO THE END THAT PROTECTED EXPRESSION IS NOT ABRIDGED." (emphasis mine)
I submit that the word "protected" is the key. If some class of expression is "protected," then even "legal" pressure to violate such expression is not legitimate. This seeming contradiction arises where state laws seem to conflict with US Constitutional requirements -- not a wholly unheard of situation, and obviously one of concern to librarians and patrons.
(And note in any case that, once a warrant is verified, the librarian's role is over. They will not be removing said material in any case. Law enforcement will do that.)
Such an issue could only be resolved by recourse to the legal profession; not, by any stretch of the imagination, by the librarian on duty at the time. Laying it out this way in the policy will ensure that the librarian has but one option if the warrant cannot be verified: to buck the problem up the chain to his/her superiors -- or to the lawyers -- to resolve the issue. The policy ensures that patron privacy will not be casually violated, and that proper forms will be observed -- as is only appropriate.
Also, every warrant is not taken to the Supreme Court before being issued, and there is a rich history of warrants that turn out not to be valid for one reason or another. That said, we already know that if a warrant is verified valid, through a phone call to the court, the librarian will allow enforcement of it. So where's the problem in that?
"
Where did the "resistance" language come from and how was it inserted into the policy?
"
Um, for the latter, I assume a committee wrote the language, and then it was adopted by a vote of the board. As for where it came from, what other word would you use to signify non-cooperation with actions not yet verified as being legal? I think "resist" covers it pretty well.
Note that resistance does not require a librarian to board up the front door, load the guns, and set the library's self-destruct code. In a library setting, "resist" means that the librarian will not consent to computers being taken, or records being perused (until of course proper order is observed).
[ I deleted the "above" comment just to correct some spelling. Otherwise, this is the same as the comment that was deleted ]
LightningJoe:
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously a lawyer who would plead for leniency for a child killing his parents based on the child now being an orphan.
You took my words and twisted them to start talking about "ILLEGAL" warrants. That was not what I was talking about.
Remember I said right in the title that this matter needs investigation? Well now an ALA Councilor agrees, yet again showing SafeLibraries was right on target and an investigation is needed:
ReplyDeleteFrom: Mark C. Rosenzweig
Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:49 AM
To: alacoun@ala.org
If "American Libraries" were worth the glossy paper it is printed on, its editors would be investigating the facts of the story of Wasilla, the Governor , the library and its librarian.
And if they were journalists in any real sense at AL, they would be establishing for all of us what actually happened there so that people had some authoritative information rather than rumors and bogus documents about a library issue of some real significance.
ALA is actually derelict in its responsibilities in not being out front of this story and ready to say with authority what occurred in Wasilla.
But ALA and AL are apparently too hamstrung by their own fears to even speak to what is clearly a library issue and one to which people should naturally look to ALA for answers.
Of course, it was OK to opine about Gov. Palin's allegedly "sexy librarian" looks. That seems to fall within the limits of what the editor of AL feels is permissible to editorialize about. But the real story of Wasilla.? Look elsewhere, people. ALA is a 501(c)3 and... blahblahblah....
Mark C. Rosenzweig
ALA Councilor at large
Get a load of this: "Update on List of Books Palin Sought to Ban---'It Is a False Rumor.'"
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteYou took my words and twisted them to start talking about "ILLEGAL" warrants. That was not what I was talking about.
"
So what? It's what I was talking about... If you need an expl, I was breaking down the situation the clause refers to, into possible cases; ONE of which, would be the case where the warrant itself was illegal.
Besides frank forgeries, or hypothical ("rhetorical?") warrant-issuing judicial hothouses, an illegal warrant would be a warrant that frankly violates the Constitution in some fashion -- such as in the extreme case of an order to close all of a library's contents from access.
At some point, Constitutional considerations will trump a simple warrant. Part of the librarian's job is to make the determination, for her/himself, of where that point lies.
Librarians are trained in these considerations, so in large part such a decision is a matter of examining the circumstances, and knowing the permissible response. Of course, making the choice is mandatory, not optional.
And before you ask, yes; they do have the right (and the duty) to make the judgement described. One reason that's so, is because there is a fork in events, when a warrant is served, where a library must decide whether or not to allow a search.
Events could go either way from that point. Either the library allows the search, in which case subsequent events will follow one path. Or the library makes the judgment NOT to allow it, even though the warrant itself is superficially in order. In the latter case, events after a librarian's refusal to cooperate will be substantially different, than if she had simply handed over the disks.
The professional on the spot must decide whether to cooperate or not, and will be liable for the results of that decision. Likewise, she is also accountable to the public for any effect her actions may have on the public's rights. If she refuses to cooperate, she could be jailed. If she gives in, she may be giving away public rights that she is charged with preserving.
A librarian is directed by the policy to err on the side of preserving public rights, unless and until he or she is convinced that the search is legal. This is partly because damage due to lost rights cannot easily be undone; whereas a search not performed might always be performed later, on preserved evidence. If the librarian judges that the warrant does not rise to constitutional authority, she will refuse to cooperate, possibly to locking the door to the computer room or the records room.
This is not an end point, though -- just a step in the process of law. If the situation is urgent enough, warrant enforcement can be bucked up the line to the Governor's office or the federal level, marshals can be sent to enforce it, and legal issues can be put off for later. Trust me, that librarians are not going to hold off marshals with firearms. The search WILL be performed, and in short order, if the underlying situation is urgent enough.
If the underlying cause is NOT of an urgent nature, the case could work upward through the courts (or of course the warrant could be withdrawn).
The library's decision not to cooperate, then, is really just a next-level appeal for a higher authority to decide the issue; with inherent respect for the frangible nature of individual rights.
Of course I have invented the above situation, but it fits into a full reading of the clause in question; just as if (ya think?) that clause was crafted to deal with just such possibilities...
I submit that it's wrong, to portray the meaning of this well thought out clause as a one-dimensional enjoinment to obstruct legal searches. It covers a range of responses, from full cooperation with a legal search, to non-cooperation with an out-of-order warrant. In my opinion, it also has a well-tempered elegance to it, and it's very clear what it means, after study.
Now, about that orphan who killed his parents: how long do you think he ought to have to wait for his inheritance, when he needs it to pay for his defense? :)
Found this laying around...
ReplyDelete"
Regarding the ALA's dictates not being dictates, one just has to look at sample policy language from the ALA, then see library after library after library adopt the exact same language. Or would you have everyone believe that somehow, coincidentally, libraries typed up the same language as the ALA.
"
So they have the same language. Let's see if we can figure out why.
Well, it could be an evil exertion of cynical control -- by a secret, repressive, and autocratic cabal of librarians, out to corrupt our children and subvert decency.
Or... it could be a recognition on the part of all of those libraries, once they've studied the matter, of the excellent job the ALA has done of codifying the librarian's code of equal access, to all legal materials, for all citizens.
Along with, I might add, a certain safety-in-unity. If a local library cobbles up a policy unlike any other, it will be on its own to defend it. On the other hand, if their policy is substantially the same as many other libraries, and is actively defended by an active national organization, then the adopting library is not on its own for defense.
Don't overlook the benefits of collective action and sentiment.
"Frangible"? Are you a lawyer?
ReplyDelete"Don't overlook the benefits of collective action and sentiment." Except where the ALA says, "Challenged materials ... should not be removed under any legal or extra-legal pressure." Has the ALA become the new master?
Ha! Now Snopes is exposing the lies about banned books and Sarah Palin!!
ReplyDeleteSee: "Banned Books."
It's official. There has never "ever" (emphasis in original) been any books banned from the Wasilla Public Library.
ReplyDeleteSo what was all this stink about?
Which brings us back full circle -- an investigation of the library's actions may be warranted, particularly in light of how this very story was been used for political purposes as it was and continues to be. So much so that the ALA's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status may be in jeopardy.
Is that "legal ... pressure" thing stopping you up? Let's examine it.
ReplyDeleteThe clause in question (I'm sticking with the internet access clause you brought in, for my example) says quite conclusively that the library IS to cooperate with LEGAL warrants (of whatever sort; so long as they are legal).
It is also very clear that, UNTIL the legality of the warrant is verified, the library is to resist the execution of the warrant ("resist," in my understanding, simply meaning not cooperating -- cooperation being the hinge whereby liability might attach to the institution).
So valid legal authority is NOT to be resisted. I think (hope) we've covered that sufficiently.
So, then, what is this "legal...pressure" the library is enjoined to resist, if the phrase does not apply to verified warrants (in the absense, that is, of constitutional issues, as I've said before)?
I think "pressure" is the key word here. It's not used in another context in the clause, therefore it most probably is NOT meant to apply to any legal authorization, such as a valid warrant.
It seems to me that the word "pressure" is meant to apply to lawsuits or civil injunctions. This is in fact the common meaning of such a phrase. These entities are indeed termed "legal," but the word here is a qualifier meaning "operating in the sphere or process of law." If I bring a lawsuit against you, you can say that I'm bringing legal pressure, regardless of the (eventually proved) merit of the suit, or lack of same. Such "pressure" does not in any fashion have the same authority as a valid warrant. "Non-legal" pressure would of course cover such things as a mob of outraged book-burners showing up with torches.
The bare fact that someone has brought a lawsuit against the library to (for example) remove materials, cannot, in the (full) meaning of the clause, be a reason to actually remove those materials -- not until the issue has evolved through the courts from a simple pending lawsuit to an actual legal directive to remove said materials.
A civil injunction would of course have more implicit legal force than would a simple pending lawsuit, but -- don't forget the legal-steps context of the issue at question -- it is still subject to verification (and perhaps appeal) before allowing action on it, just as a warrant is subject.
And note again, that valid (verified) warrants are not argued with. If a warrant is valid, it is a fait-accompi: the library is then enjoined -- under this same clause of the policy -- to comply with the warrant to the best of their ability. The only holdup is the small pause in the process while the library verifies that, indeed, the warrant is valid and should be respected.
A valid warrant is a key, not a battering ram. It does not exert "pressure;" it jumps right past pressure, to outright authorization, and the library does not insert itself against proven-valid authority.
You've also seemed to have a problem with the idea of the library verifying the warrant, when it is served on them. I consider this a no-brainer. Of course a professional who must respond to a warrant in a professional capacity, must verify the validity of said warrant. Anyone serving a warrant knows that the mark- er, served person can make a call to the court to verify it, before the warrant is executed. In professional conduct, as I said, such a call is de-rigeur and expected. This is the well-tempered process by which rights are respected. Short of martial law, the process of law carries on step by verified step.
No, I'm not a lawyer, I just know how to read (and think).
If you have any further confusions, on the meaning of passages in the ALA's policy statements I suggest you contact them, and inquire directly as to the meaning of the confusing bits. Doubtless they could clear up these questions better than I (better than you?). Legal language usually implies carefully-weighed considerations, and direct inquiry would seem the most efficient way of discovering the considerations involved in its drafting.
Have you contacted them to find out what they meant to say?
"
It's official. [insert gleeful chortle here] There has never "ever" (emphasis in original) been any books banned from the Wasilla Public Library.
"
So what? No one "ever" said there have been. This discussion is about alegations that books were REQUESTED to be banned, at least through what Palin has called "rhetorical" questioning. Proving that the library didn't do what she putatively asked, says nothing about whether she asked or not.
No one ever thought any books had actually been banned, and you know this full well. So turn the dial back down on your triumph endocrines (testosterone, in this case: look it up).
LightningJoe:
ReplyDeleteObviously you feel the need to go out of your way to try to defend the library's official policy to "resist" legal process.
Everyone:
I found a rather full explanation of the facts and circumstances underlying this entire matter: "Sliming Palin; False Internet Claims and Rumors Fly About McCain's Running Mate," 8 September 2008.
It still does not address the questions I raised that may be answered with an investigation of the library's actions.
"
ReplyDeleteObviously you feel the need to go out of your way to try to defend the library's official policy to "resist" legal process.
"
Um... I didn't TRY to defend the policy. I DID defend the policy. If you feel that my defense of the language of the clause in question contained flaws, logical, factual, or otherwise, then please please please point out those flaws to me, that I might mend by ways.
But if the best you can do, is say that it was "out of my way" to come to the defense of professionals I respect, then you call your own motivations in this discussion into question as well. Isn't it "out of your way," to criticize the policy in the first place -- or is your involvement in this discussion qualitatively different than mine?
And, by similar reasoning, doesn't it say something about the arguments I presented, regarding language and the implications of such, that you aren't even going to "try" to rebut my rather compendious points; but instead run to questioning the depth of my commitment, by saying that my response must be out of my way?. How would you know what's out of my way or not? What if this IS my way?
Criticizing these policies is obviously not out of YOUR way, or you wouldn't pursue it with such verve. But my defense of them is supposed to be out of my way?
The above is just to illustrate that you have a habit of framing your arguement in ways that will let you "win."
...in illustration of which, let's visit one shift that you just now put out. I've quite exhaustively rebutted the idea that the "resisting" that upsets you so, is related to a validly-issued warrant. So what do you do? You pick a different set of words, in an attempt to redefine the issue back to where you want it.
I mean your referring, in your passage above, to the "library's official policy to "resist" legal process."
In case it has escaped your attention, I've already shown -- the language of the clause under examination has shown -- that legal process IS TO BE RESPECTED under the clause. This is plain, because legal process is embodied in the issuance of valid warrants or injunctions, and AFTER such are validated, the "resistance" ends.
The clause in fact does not refer at all to "legal...process." It refers to "legal or non-legal PRESSURE." If you think process means the same thing as pressure, you should continue your education, and put off posting about legal language issues until you know what the words mean.
But I don't think it's confusion of language, that causes you to substitute a word where it doesn't belong. Before this, you always used the word in the actual clause: pressure. And then when I expound on what the words "legal ... pressure" must refer to in the clause, you bring in this word "process," possibly hoping the substitution will go unremarked, and continue in use in the discussion, thus leaving you with a more tenable position -- albeit one based on a fallacy.
Sue me, but I just don't like such slippery tactics (yes, I said slippery: you slip, dude; you slide). But such tactics only "work" when someone lets you slip them in under the radar -- which I've no intention of letting you do. Note that by "work," I don't mean -- by any stretch -- that those tactic actually validate your arguement. I just mean that to the unwary, they lend an air of authenticity to your points -- which "air" is all you have left, of authenticity.
So, is that enough to satisfy you? If you were to "win" an arguement by using such dishonest tactics, would you then feel good about your stolen "victory?" Yes -- you can mentally confuse your hormonal system, so that it floods your veins with a testosterone rush when you "zing" someone with a manipulated arguement. That's exactly what happens when a sports fan gets a rush when his team wins, even if the win was largely a matter of chance.
Personally, I feel much better, and respect myself more, when I've made VALID points in an arguement, and left shiftiness to the shifty. No, I don't like to come up second in an arguement any more than you do; but HOW I CONDUCT MYSELF in such arguements is my main concern. The standards of evidence and comportment that I use.
And in passing, allow me to expand just a bit on WHY I prefer it that way. The way a person carries on in the world is not meaningless; not to those who see his actions, nor indeed to the person himself. Think of the question of "who will know," if your tactics are less than above-board? Well, duh, you will.
A history of such stances can't make you feel better about yourself, even if you prefer to "justify" them by resort to a "larger purpose." As time goes on, you will become less and less a principled advocate, and more of a dishonest used-car salesman.
If this is how you wish to develop your inner being, go for it. But don't think people can't tell; and don't expect them to let you get away with twisting the truth.
USAToday
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-09-Palin-book-ban_N.htm
Thank you, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteThat link is partly obscured. Let me try it this way:
"Palin Did Not Ban Books In Wasilla As Mayor," by John Fritze, USA TODAY, 10 September 2008.
Look! It says, "Jim Rettig, president of the American Library Association and university librarian at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said the organization received 420 challenges to library materials last year but said he believes many more challenges go unreported."
But it did not report that Jim Rettig himself has been himself accused of censorship by ALA Councilors for stopping ALA members from making statements against Governor Palin about so-called censorship that may threaten the ALA's 501(c)(3) tax exemption!
I hereby note that James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal has written an article that tracks nearly the exact same progression of the Palin is a book banner lie as I do. Taranto evens names the exact same sources I name.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, SafeLibraries can be seen to have provided the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
See: "Putting the 'Lie' in 'Library'," by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2008
NYT has more on her apparent interest in censorship. She mentioned before she even became mayor that an illustrated childrens book dealing with a child with two dads be removed from the shelves. This came up in a city council meeting and nothing came of it.
ReplyDeleteLater she asked the librarian on three seperate occasions about her reaction if palin asked for books to be removed. A local reporter says the librarian referenced 3 titles, one of which was the subject of criticism from palin's church at the time (Pastor, Im gay). Gay books seem to be at issue, rather than say The Origin of the Species.
I think she believes these things but as her views on teaching creationism alongside evolution, she is willing to back off if she senses strong opposition. Does that mean her views have changed? Or that she is simply waiting for a better opportunity? I cant say.
Bobc,
ReplyDeleteThat is very interesting. I was almost tempted by your logic into saying people like you describe just back off to wait for a better opportunity. Then I realized I don't know what to make of what you said because of the person involved. Then I realized the final result might be good news.
From what I have heard, VP nominee Sarah Palin does not look like the type to back off and wait. Rather, she took on corruption in her own party and won big. So it is quite possible her views have changed, and appropriately so. After all, that's why she asked questions in the first place.
Safelibraries.org, you have a fairly strange idea of what the "complete truth and nothing but the truth" actually means.
ReplyDeleteHave you already forgotten the drubbing you got, over your assertion that the ALA (clause you cited) instructs librarians to resist legal force?
Or does your idea of "complete" just not include the parts you want to leave out, for "rhetorical" purposes? Is your parroting of the language of the court-of-law truth oath merely coincidental (as if) -- or do you mean to imply that your efforts in this forum actually measure up to such a standard?
I wondered how you would react to my disproof of your "resist" premise -- if you would mend your ways and thenceforth cease using falsehoods in your dialog...
-- Or if you would just wait for me to (hopefully) go away so you could lie some more. The latter, I guess.
At first, you just shifted your ground to the acknowledged fact that no books have ever been banned at the Wasilla Public Library -- which fact has never been contested by anyone on this forum, NOR in the media at large, and hence is not in contention at all!
How do you think you look when you contest something that no one has even said? (Like a fool, is one possibility.) I guess contesting the non-posited does have one virtue, though: it's utterly safe, as no one is likely to bring any facts against you.
Such a "phantom argument" tactic is actually (kinda) okay with me. It adds nothing to the discussion, and it fogs the issue a bit, for those who aren't familiar with it; but at least it's not a lie -- except for the implication that anyone claimed the obverse in the first place.
So that's fine (if shifty), but then you chose to reclaim the mantle of honest broker of information, which doesn't fit you anymore (see above discussion of the language of the clause you cited). Sorry, but I can't let pass, that claim of a suddenly-mended history of honesty. You no longer deserve it, and everyone on this forum (and others???) ought to know of your predelictions regarding the "whole truth."
Maybe you never considered the consequences, when first you danced with the devil of calculated untruth. Well, THIS is the consequence. You can no longer make the claim you just made, of being unfailingly truthfull. You may in fact be truthfull from time to time going forward (and hopefully you will get credit for such); but no longer can you enjoy the benefit of the doubt that comes with a demonstrated honest stance.
Let's look at the Wall Street Journal/James Taranto article you cite, because it has the same sort of problem I'm pointing out about your statements. In the second sentence, it says that,
"Palin's opponents claim that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she was a "book banner"--which is to say, that she sought to have books removed from the local public library. This claim has been debunked..."
Taranto defines a "book banner" as one who seeks to have books banned (NOT just as one who succeeds in such an attempt). He claims that this accusation has been "debunked," but none of the evidence he cites -- with the exception of a disclaim by the one accused -- supports the idea that she never sought the banning. By his own definition, and the weakness of what he likes to think of as "evidence," the accusation still stands.
But he claims it doesn't. Such tactics remind me of someone-- Oh: YOU.
Presumably, I've now made you angry, by questioning your honesty again, and you will now respond with a direct and factual defense of that essential conversive quality. I look forward to being proven wrong.
Or... you could backtrack in one of two ways. You could try to re-define the issues at hand -- as you've done once already, by shifting from "she never tried" to "she never succeeded." Or you could backtrack completely, and try to pretend that I never proved your "resist" premise wrong; that other evidence says it is right. I can hardly wait to see which way you slide.
This is starting to get fun; most truth-adjusters might have given up by now.
LightningJoe has just said, "Let's look at the Wall Street Journal/James Taranto article you cite, because it has the same sort of problem I'm pointing out about your statements. .... Such tactics remind me of someone-- Oh: YOU."
ReplyDeleteI think LightningJoe's arguments can be summed up as he's right, and everyone else is wrong; the end justifies the means.
I am flattered to be lumped into the same group as James Taranto. Thank you, LightningJoe, for the complement.
Oops, compliment, not complement.
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteI think LightningJoe's arguments can be summed up as he's right, and everyone else is wrong; the end justifies the means.
"
(attack the messenger)
Love it, let's see-
I do assume I'm right (right now, that is); for two reasons. My analysis of the matter at question above (plain legal language) seemed to make excellent sense to me. But the greater factor in my own-argument-satisfaction, is that you haven't answered me back on it. That implies either that the internets were down, or you couldn't discount my arguments.
( just in passing, let's note that there's (at least) a third way to handle this challenge. you could gracefully admit to a misreading or misinterpretation, regarding "resist"ing, then we could joke about your dog or talk about the hurricanes, and you could (unasked) refrain thereafter from citing that particular false datum. that would be the civilized way, the honor-path way, and doubtless we'd both leave the encounter elevated and affirmed :)
But to say that my argument(s) IS that I'm right? ...hang on, I'm consulting my pretzel...
I think we were arguing about the meanings of clauses, and nothing to do with me, I seem to remember...
"everyone else is wrong..."
Please tell me it's not so. I hope I'm not the only "right" one in the world. May as well end it now, before the torture.
and... "the end justifies the means."
Now there's the juice; but don't look now, because it's not about me. I'm pretty careful about my means AND my ends, because they don't always get along. I find the ends end where they will, pretty much regardless of means. And I've missed out on many good ends, because I care about the means to them.
That may sound like just wordplay to you, but consider that a person is the sum of what he does.
How should I feel about myself -- who would i be -- if I filled up my spirit with cheap shots taken at others? Because that is what you describe -- a person who will do unfair things, for some benefit to himself. Do those words mean nothing much, to you?
The only thing you can take with you is yourself. Do you care about the quality, of your final, sole, personal possession? If you do, you might start getting picky about the quality of the thoughts and acts that make up that soul. What you care about, is what you are.
If you consider yourself religious, you have your own take on such questions. But it comes to the same thing -- that our actions matter, and go with us on our passages.
So, why do you say such things about me?
And I'm right again:
ReplyDelete"The Real Library 'Censors,'" by Dr. Judith Reisman, WorldNetDaily, 16 September 2008.
LightningJoe:
All I said was, "he's right, and everyone else is wrong; the end justifies the means" and you go on about how that is a personal attack. It may be a gross oversimplification, but it is not a personal attack.
And I love all the excuse making over the "resisting" language when you scoff at Sarah Palin's "rhetorical" question. Double standard, perhaps? If you view saying you have a double standard as a personal attack, then I withdrew the comment.
To be honest, safelibraries, I sometimes have a problem figuring out what you are right about THIS time, and whether it still bears any resemblance to the subject under discussion. Perhaps you could be a bit more explicit when you say "I'm right?"
ReplyDeleteThe link you provide above goes seriously off the handle in at least a couple of ways (no time right now to do a thorough exam that I'm probably not qualified for anyway (thorny legal issues, and precedents that I can't sort out)).
Dr. Reisman seems to deal with hard legal questions with some of the same "fluidity" I've observed in your own argument style:
"
The librarian reportedly stiffened in her chair and retorted that as a veteran professional librarian she would call "the ACLU" to defend her right to shelve or eliminate those books she deemed valuable.
"
It may seem a small point to you, but she actually referenced the public's right (not "her right") to free information, and "she" wasn't the one who had decided on the library's collection in the first place, but had followed the guidelines of (I can't remember the specific reference) an organization of library professionals.
"
As a public servant, Ms. Emmons should have said she would ask the picketers to explain their grievances. Were some library decisions violating what these folks saw as their rights? She would be on inquiry.
Instead, the head librarian showed no interest in why citizens might resort to picket speech around their own library.
"
This is disingenuous in the extreme, because the question Palin is said to have posed, included the information that the picketers would have been picketing in protest of a book being on the shelf. If the librarian had no idea why people with signs were outside the branch, she might indeed have asked them; but the Mayor's premise to the "rhetorical" question had already supplied that information. There was no need to ask that question in order to answer the question.
Those of us who prefer real logic and facts in our discussions shy away from such shifty tactics. I have no problem with actual facts, and am ready (and willing) to change my stance and my opinions if real facts are presented to me, and stand the test of examination. If you or Dr. Reisman come up with any, please let me know.
For instance, this:
"
Those who have followed the controversy are aware that children's books often ooze with violent, coarse, sadistic, pornographic descriptions of oral sodomy, incest, copulation, rape, murder, bestiality, cannibalism, drug use, etc.
"
I want to see those books. Not because they would turn me on, but because I'm damned if I'm going to take Dr. Reisman's word for it. I've never seen such things in any children's books.
Does the above reflect your view, also? If so, I'm sure you can steer me to the proof that convinced you. Please do so. I want to be educated.
"
Children have been molested and raped in library bathrooms and elevators by pornography-high predators.
"
One specific case: Corry Saunders -- Mother was in the library too, about ten feet away from the action; but it was the LIBRARIAN who grew suspicious, notified the mother, and turned him in.
Of course one example does not make a rule, and there still may be reason to be upset with librarians.
But Dr. Reisman, if she has proof of her statements, doesn't see fit to provide it in the post you cite (I've not examined her blog site in detail), and so the post you cite is still only opinion, not "fact."
And given her creative way with the points I cited above, I'm disinclined to trust her anyway. When someone shows that they have no compunction about using questionable tactics, they should be subjected to doubled scrutiny.
Quoting myself:
ReplyDelete"
But Dr. Reisman, if she has proof of her statements, doesn't see fit to provide it in the post you cite (I've not examined her blog site in detail), and so the post you cite is still only opinion, not "fact."
"
My phrasing was off, here.
Of course much of the post may be, and probably is, factual enough. I know nothing of the structure or funding of publisher's professional organizations, for example, whereas the Doctor seems at least adequately versed on all of that.
I was in a hurry to leave for work when I wrote that, and didn't realize the likely interpretation. I probably should have left out that paragraph entirely, as I'd already dealt with the issue.
I really only meant that in reference to the good Professor's list of unsavory nuggets of depravity, supposedly to be found within the pages of children's literature.
And I'm right again:
ReplyDelete"The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores," by Michelle Malkin, TownHall.com, 17 September 2008.
And I'm right again.
ReplyDeleteRecall I said in a comment above as I tracked how the smear started and spread:
"And an even bigger librarian blog is repeating the Time smear: "Sarah Palin, VP Nominee," by Jessamyn West, Librarian.net, 2 September 2008. Let me add that this repetition of the Time smear is almost assuredly innocent."
Apparently, is was innocent. Jessamyn West herself now says something entirely consistent with what I have been saying:
"Hi. A lot has gone on since I posted the thread linking to the Time Magazine article about Sarah Palin. I would like to explain some things to possibly staunch the flow of emails I have gotten asking me about Comment Eleven, the supposed list of books Palin wanted to ban. That list is not in any way linked to Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin did not ban any books. She did, however, have many interactions with the Wasila librarian concerning the library’s collection and possible censorship/challenges/banning. Specific information about titles has not made it to any media report I’ve read and probably won’t. The librarian was fired, reinstated and ultimately resigned much later but not necessarily because of that incident. She is still a librarian in Alaska.
"That information comes from the New York Times, ABC news and factcheck.org. There is a lot of misinformation about this entire situation and very few concrete facts. The list of books can be found other places on the Internet, and most recently on Snopes. Please go to Snopes if you need a site on the Internet to send people to who are still sending you that list.
"Now, let’s look at what we do know. ...."
"On Fact Checking and Sarah Palin and Book Banning, by Jessamyn West, Librarian.net, 10 September 2008.
Right again:
ReplyDelete"Enough of the Palin Feeding Frenzy," by Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, 17 September 2008.
"But the left's onslaught against Palin has been of a different order of magnitude." That likely explains the lengthy LightningJoe legerdemain in the comments of this very blog post.
Legerdemain? Now you see it, now you don't? Illusion, manipulation, and deception?
ReplyDeleteTo that charge, I simply reference my numerous pleas to be set straight, if something I say is demonstrably off base, or just plain wrong. I'm still waiting for you to attempt such an exercise in support of your stances. Slight of hand is for those with a talent for shiftiness and half-truths, not for me.
The art of argumentation is a back-and-forth flow of more or less valid assertions that, turn by turn, are subjected to examination and reasoned critique. It's not an argument proper, unless both parties play by similar rules. If one side uses logic and reasoned evaluation, but the other side uses distraction and shifty definitions, and cites "proof" that doesn't prove what it's purported to prove -- that's not argumentation.
Legerdemain would indeed be one valid term for that sort of behavior. One problem: I'm not the one who's been acting that way.
A venerable tactic in propaganda is to turn your own weakness into a "strength" by accusing your target of exactly what you are guilty of. By contrast, then, the propagandist looks to be what he says his target is not. The whole dynamic rests on the naive assumption that a person would never accuse someone of being what he himself is; that by saying A is bad, one must therefore be B -- or at least not A. This assumption is generally not questioned by the listener, who thinks that the prop must be a good guy, if he says so-and-so is bad.
If the propagandist wants to appear more patriotic, he accuses his target of being unpatriotic. If he wants to appear smart, he calls his target dumb. If he wants people to think his own arguments are reasoned and honest, he accuses his opponent of something like legerdemain, shiftiness, falsity.
Now, this doesn't mean that all accusations of shiftiness are false in themselves. If there is evidence for changing focus to avoid backing up one's opinions, that is indeed the soul of shiftiness, and an accusation is then in order. I say this because I've observed that you, safelibraries, have an unfortunate tendency toward shiftiness. But I've never once stated that I am honest; that's for the reader to judge.
But by the propaganda principle I cited above, one IS entitled to take a close look at the accuser, with a mind toward evaluating one's own standing on the same honesty-deception continuum. I expect such scrutiny and welcome it, but you have never brought it home to me.
I feel disappointed, stood up, belittled that you don't see fit to roll out your doubtless amazing arguments, in support of your own positions. You seem to prefer the "endless argumentation" technique of continually changing the subject.
No argument rises above the squabble level, if asserted points aren't resolved before moving on. All one has in that case, is a history of accusations, with no resolutions at all. The more I see of your tactics, the less I think you really want to straighten anything out. You seem more interested in tossing out accusations, causing dissatisfaction with professional librarians, and not at all in addressing the validity of the points you bring into the discussion.
That's fine, if you want to operate that way; but don't call it argumentation, or reason, or (gasp!) logical -- because it's none of those things. Such verbal dancing around is ideological boosterism.
Your response?
LightningJoe, I simply do not have the time to respond to your frequent and long posts. It is as simple as that. Besides, with so many others essentially saying what I have been saying, I would just be duplicative. It is funny, though, that each one I list you find a reason why they too are wrong.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, I do appreciate your writing here. The more opinions there are, the more interesting/useful will this blog be. And although you are long winded, you nevertheless write cogent arguments.
Thanks again.
And now, Governor Palin speaks:
ReplyDeletePalin also dismissed reports that in 1996 she had made inquiries with the local librarian about censoring some of what was on the bookshelves.
“As people there know, all questions posed to the library director were asked in a context of professionalism, regarding the library policy that was in place,” Palin said. “Before I became mayor, there was conversation in our community about what sorts of books were appropriate for the public library. I asked the librarian about the process for answering that question as a way to familiarize myself with city staff and the issues being discussed in Wasilla at that time.”
“I certainly never advocated banning books. This was a ridiculous, false claim. Supposedly one of the books the media claims I banned was ‘Harry Potter,’ which wasn’t even published back then. There were never any books banned and any reports claiming otherwise are grossly false.”
The Alaska governor added, “I’ve always believed the government closest to the people governs best, so I won’t try to second-guess local officials back home.”
"Palin Defends Record to Hometown Paper," by Andy Barr, The Politico, 30 September 2008.
And while I'm writing, let me add my original concerns that the library may have inappropriately outed Governor Palin have been assuaged by media reports showing the relevant statements were made in public, not in private for political gain. Case closed.
Some statements are so full of crap (a word which here means "not-true stuff") that you have to take them apart bit by bit. So, to take apart the good governor's utterances:
ReplyDelete"Before I became mayor, there was conversation in our community about what sorts of books were appropriate for the public library..."
"Our community" being Palin's church, and the "conversation" being her fellow churchies trying to get books banned, while the actual community -- the town that is -- rallied to the support of the library's position.
"I asked the librarian about the process for answering that question..."
Three times, in escalating terms, when the question was answered by the librarian in definite terms the very first time, which really should have been enough for the mayor
"I certainly never advocated banning books."
I suppose this may be technically true, if one parses "advocating" NOT to include badgering, escalating, "rhetorical" questions about how to go about it.
"This was a ridiculous, false claim."
Her OWN claim, that it was ever a real charge, certainly is.
"Supposedly one of the books the media claims I banned was ‘Harry Potter,’ which wasn’t even published back then."
"The media" NEVER claimed any books were EVER banned. Nor did anyone else. We've all said the exact opposite many times now. The claim that they said books were banned is back to propaganda 101: make false claims about your opponents' positions.
The Harry Potter reference is either an attempt to further confuse those who don't know the issue, or simply a reflection of Sarah's own confusion (the latter would explain a LOT about this so-called "campaign").
The "list" was panned from the first, never taken seriously by anyone I heard. The first time I myself laid eyes on it, my first thought was, "I've seen this before, on a banned-books website." In fact, ANYONE conversant with the banned-books issue would have seen that list before. I didn't notice that Potter was on it, but so what? I would never have taken that list and the attached accusation for true, without a good balance of proof. The list itself is not proof of anything; it's just some list off the internets.
"There were never any books banned and any reports claiming otherwise are grossly false.”
Again, there are no -- and never were no -- "reports" claiming said claimed falsehood. As I remember, the MOST flammable (and of course false) claim was that Sarah had that list on her person when she went to talk to the librarian. These were supposedly the books she WANTED to ban.
"The Alaska governor added, “I’ve always believed the government closest to the people governs best, so I won’t try to second-guess local officials back home.""
Um... like local librarians, fr'instance? Like the Alaskan Congressional Commission set up to investigate troopergate, that Palin now refuses to cooperate with or appear before? Like telling her acquaintances, aides, and relatives to ignore the Commission's subpoenas? That kind of "second-guessing?"
And for safelibraries' part:
"And while I'm writing, let me add my original concerns that the library may have inappropriately outed Governor Palin have been assuaged by media reports showing the relevant statements were made in public, not in private for political gain. Case closed."
Far from "closed," safe. (I assume there was supposed to be a comma after "in private." It makes more sense that way.)
Why on EARTH do you say that outing the (then) Mayor was "inappropriate?" If you (for instance) had tried to get me (for instance) to take books off a library shelf, by badgering me with quartering questions about how to do it, it wouldn't be in the least "inappropriate" for me to "out" you to some public forum for it. Just so (and in spades!), for a Mayor or Governor.
You're falling into your old bad habits, safe. Logic isn't nearly as maliable as you seem to wish it were. Operating as though assertion were proof, only endears you to those already convinced of your position. Therefore acting as though you are filling in the holes, when really you are only preaching to your choir, is disengenuous and ultimately meaningless.
Get a clue, safe ol' boy. You are discredited here, and no amount of carefully-parsed claims to the contrary can resurrect your position.
Waiting...
"Why on EARTH do you say that outing the (then) Mayor was 'inappropriate?'"
ReplyDeleteYou have to start reading this blog from the beginning to get an answer to that.
In a nutshell, the library has a radical privacy policy that even requires resistance of legal process. Had the librarian acted in private to out the Governor, that might be considered 'inappropriate,' at the very least, given her own library's privacy policy. It would have been quite something to see the library talking one way and walking the other. It was a possibility worth considering, but the media reports reveal, at least to me, that the library head did not act inappropriately in this regard. Hence, case closed.
Thought I'd dealt with this (because I DID deal with it!)
ReplyDelete""Why on EARTH do you say that outing the (then) Mayor was 'inappropriate?'"
You have to start reading this blog from the beginning to get an answer to that. "
Read every word, old boy, every word.
"In a nutshell, the library has a radical privacy policy that even requires resistance of legal process."
I've dealt with this meme in exhausting detail (thinking of just such an occasion as this). You have now graduated from simply slapping inuendo around, into outright lying.
I'm sorry -- is that harsh? Trouble is, that's the plain English, for the practice of putting forth disproven assertions.
I've proven, above in the thread, that your premise that the wording of the policy requires resistance to legal PROCESS is outright false. You insist on conflating two terms together, that have very different definitions, and very different legal implications. I refer of course to the conflation of the terms "process" and "pressure." They don't -- at all -- mean the same thing, in a legal document like the policy you've cited, and you have not -- not even once -- countered my plain-fact arguments on that score. If proof lies in argument (rather than simple assertion) I am the plain "winner" of the discussion, and you haven't a leg to stand on.
Legal Pressure, as cited in the policy clause at issue, applies to the various means people with lawyers might use to force a change of behavior in the target person or agency -- SHORT of gaining an actual legal ruling to force the change.
Why do I draw that distinction? Because at the point where an actual ruling is handed down to favor those who desire to amend an institution's practices, the "pressure" ceases entirely, and is replaced by "process" -- that is, the plaintif's actions are now subject to legal enforcement, and the process of law takes over. Where before, all you had were threats and entreaty, now you have US Marshals with warrants.
ONCE IT REACHES THAT POINT, it is a "process" of law, and the very policy you cite enjoins utter cooperation with whatever process the law dictates. The policy only says that the warrants must be verified before cooperating with them; which is a sensible measure I'd expect of any institution being served a warrant for whatever purpose.
So, again: saying that the policy "requires resistance of legal process" is a lie. A lie. A lie. It once may have been a mistaken impression on your part, but thanks to the unchallenged plain-English language-parsing by yours truly, you can be "mistaken" no longer.
Now, you are LYING.
I'm STILL waiting for ANY evidence to the contrary of my position. If you cannot come up with any, then stop pushing this falsehood.
LightningJoe,
ReplyDeleteI'll be gentle because I can tell you are a fan of mine.
The reason why I used the word "process" is that the word "process" is used, a few times no less, by the library itself:
"Confidentiality: Any information that identifies Internet users with specific materials or subject matter is considered confidential. Such records shall not be made available to any agency of local, state or federal government except pursuant to such process, order or subpoena as may be authorized under the authority of federal, state or local law relating to criminal, civil or administrative discovery procedures or legislative investigatory power. Wasilla Public Library resists the issuance or enforcement of any such process, order or subpoena until such time as proper showing of good cause has been made in court of competent jurisdiction."
Thanks again for commenting.
"I'll be gentle because I can tell you are a fan of mine."
ReplyDeleteNo need for gentleness, safe; not on any account.
"The reason why I used the word "process" is that the word "process" is used, a few times no less, by the library itself:"
But notably NOT in the context YOU use it in, when you misrepresent the meaning of the clause. Your latest example is not in the same clause we've been discussing, but let's pick it apart anyway, because that's always revealing.
"...Such records shall not be made available to any agency of local, state or federal government except pursuant to such process, order or subpoena as may be authorized under the authority of..."
This is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT context of the term than your now infamous and fraudulent "resist legal process" trope. The process mentioned above (you're not a lawyer, are you?) is a reference to an actionable and legitimate legal showing; authorized either by a judge, or some accredited oversight board (with "competent" authority). Whatever the origin of a valid (for short) warrant, the proper process of law IS NOT, by the clause's own language, to be resisted (which is the opposite of your assertion). This is evident from the phrasing, which first spells out a very clear mandate to adhere to legal process; and only then enjoins the library not to bow to legal pressure (ie, threats of action, or pending (but not consumated) legal actions).
And, yet again, you reel this one out as bait:
"Wasilla Public Library resists the issuance or enforcement of any such process, order or subpoena until such time as proper showing of good cause has been made in court of competent jurisdiction.""
This clause only, yet again, says what I'VE been saying; that UNTIL SUCH TIME AS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, the library will protect its (and our) interests.
You are saying that the library's policy enjoins personnel to disobey the law. It absolutely does not say that; in fact, it says the opposite. What it says, is that personnel should make sure that a warrant is legal before they cooperate with it. That is a per-normal requirement of any professional charged with protecting the interests of others (ie, my right to access information). If it were otherwise, it would be okay for the library to pull any book off the shelf as soon as someone complained about it.
This seems to be exactly what you wish they would do, but I would have severe problems with that intrusion on my right to access information. Suddenly, my library would only have on its shelves that remaining portion of information that no one had seen fit to object to. There would be no Mother Earth News in the periodicals, nor any Scientific American, for that matter, as they have published articles making it plain that global warming is a real concern. There would be no information on family planning, nor any books on self-loading recipes for ammunition.
No gun-collector's digests, no fishing books (because the vegans would object), no humor books (because no one likes to be made fun of); no sewing books, because clothing manufacturers would object; no home repair books, because those professionals would object to the free distribution of information that could cut into those businesses.
Sure those examples seem ridiculous, but if the library opened themselves up for anything less than a fully legal challenge, such my-way-only challenges would proliferate like cats around a shallow fish bowl.
All this under the bridge, you STILL haven't a leg to stand on, because the uses of the word "process" that you cite in the above post don't have A SINGLE THING to do, with the use we're contending about: your assertion that the policy enjoins library staff to "resist legal process." This assertion is false on it's face, as the passage in question actually says, "resist legal pressure."
Pressure; not process. Not the same; not at all.
If this issue were to come up in a legal context, your interpretation would be thrown out on it's ear the first minute; so I'm not at all anxious on that score. I just don't like liars; and I like self-righteous liars least of all.
I've shown you exhaustively that your original stated position is dead wrong, yet you persist in "defending" it, as if it were defensible. You must realise by now that no one is convinced (COULD be convinced) by your arguments, yet you keep digging the hole deeper, as if you really don't care about your personal credibility.
Keep digging.