Michelle Malkin » The bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List

The bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List

By Michelle Malkin • September 6, 2008 12:01 AM

Palin Derangement Syndrome strikes again. This time it’s hysterical librarians and their readers on the Internet disseminating a bogus list of books Gov. Sarah Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Looks like some of these library people failed reading comprehension. Take a look at the list below and you’ll find books Gov. Palin supposedly tried to ban…that hadn’t even been published yet. Example: The Harry Potter books, the first of which wasn’t published until 1998.

The smear merchants who continue to circulate the list also failed to do a simple Google search, which would have showed them that the bogus Sarah Palin Banned Book List is almost an exact copy-and-paste reproduction of a generic list of “Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States” that has been floating around the Internet for years. STACLU notes that the official Obama campaign website is also perpetuating the fraud. And it’s spread to craigslist, where some unhinged user is posting images likening Palin to Hitler. Here it is again.

The person who first spread the Palin smear is identified as “Andrew Aucoin,” a commenter on the blog of librarian Jessamyn West. West has done the right thing in keeping the bogus comment up and pointing out in her main post that “there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.”

It’s a fake. Not true. Total B.S. A lie.

If it gets sent to you by a moonbat friend or family member, set ‘em all straight. Fight the smears. They’ve only just begun.

The bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List:

This is the list of books Palin tried to have banned. As many of you will notice it is a hit parade for book burners.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It’s Okay if You Don’t Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O’Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women’s Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil’s Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won’t by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

***

From the Anchorage Daily News story that inflamed P.D.S.:

Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go.

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.

It all happened 12 years ago and the controversy long ago disappeared into musty files. Until this week. Under intense national scrutiny, the issue has returned to dog her. It has been mentioned in news stories in Time Magazine and The New York Times and is spreading like a virus through the blogosphere.

The stories are all suggestive, but facts are hard to come by. Did Palin actually ban books at the Wasilla Public Library?

…Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.

Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.

***

Reader Martin: “If you read the Anchorage Daily News article, towards the bottom, you find that Palin requested the resignations not only of the librarian, but of several other township officials. Why? Because they were political appointees who openly supported her political opponent. Palin requested the resignations a few days BEFORE she assumed office, apparently for political reasons, as would be routine in ALL such situations, including in the very small town of Washington, DC. [Didn’t some no-name politician fire all of the US Attorneys?] Frankly, it’s far more remarkable (and shows a great deal of tolerance) for Palin to have KEPT Emmons in office. And you’d think people would consider the source when Emmons claims Palin wanted to ban books.”

STACLU: “What the hell will they just make up next?”

Answer: A bogus tale of an affair. Debunked at Hot Air.

Posted in: Sarah Palin

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (274)

trackbacks (77)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]

#201

On September 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm, Dimsdale said

lgm only relies on, and cites, very liberal sites and articles as though a) we can’t see right through them, and b)they will convert us to liberalism.

No, that is not why it posts here. It posts here in an attempt to engender despair from us over its irrationality.

It wants us to think “how can we possibly convince these (liberal / nutroot / insane) people? It’s impossible! We can never win!”

In short, it is attempting to demoralize its opposition.
#202

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, Bruce said:

PDS gone wild
People must start to understand how these things work. It is not important if a smear has any basis in fact to it - the idea is that they hope the target will waste time attempting to answer the smear, and thus not have time to promote their important ideas. Unfortunately, many politicians play their dirty game and waste that time rather than answer - when some media dipshit asks - “next question, if you have something genuine to ask me.”

It’s all about wasting time from real issues!
#203

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, JT said:

Which is why I no longer respond to them.
#204

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, starlightwoman said:

And this is just the first week of 8???!!! What will they come up with next?
#205

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm, Wayfaring Stranger said:

Quite a few people have been asking why Sarah Palin would even ask the question whether or not books could be banned. There are any number of rational, logical reasons why, and none of them as nefarious as certain people would have us believe.

Every year at our local library they have a Banned Book Week (I guess a single day won’t suffice), and what I’ve learned over the years is that not a one of the banned books on the lists the library hands out is in fact banned.

What the list does represent is books that individuals or groups have requested be banned, either in schools or public libraries.

If, as someone on the first page of comments observed, individuals in the community had approached then Mayor Palin to ask about having certain books banned, it is entirely logical that Palin would have asked whether or not it was legal to do so. A mayor is responsible for answering the concerns of the constituents, and if she didn’t have the facts ready at hand to answer a question from a constituent about banning books, the logical person to ask would be the librarian.

It’s not that difficult to understand, is it? It doesn’t necessary mean that she wanted to ban anything, but merely needed to know what policy or law was extent.

That’s what I do when I don’t know the answer to something; I find someone (whether the source be a person or a book) who does.
#206

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm, AlohaGuy said:

I would be very curious as to why Ms Palin would even ask this question.

This question from page 2 was answered by someone on page 1, but with the multiple page format now in use here which i truly hate, people aren’t nearly as likely to read all the comments.
This is todays complaint (I promise only one a day) about the new multiple page format. Thank you.
#207

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm, atheling said:

Victor Davis Hanson sums up the reasons why the entrenched elites in DC and in the media are terrified by our Sarah:

A beautiful, confident, articulate, independent, accomplished — and conservative — woman apparently has enraged Team Obama, the mainstream media, and the entire American intelligentsia, as if they were collectively hit by a cruise missile aimed from Middle America.

When Palin talks about her present life it sounds as authentic as Biden’s showy populism came off as false. Enraged feminists are apparently the gatekeepers for less well-educated American women, who are supposed to have 0-1.5 children not 5! Their husbands must be professors, lawyers, CEOs, editors — not snowmobile champions, union members, oil workers, and fishermen — or, worse, all in one! And unlike a Pelosi, Quinn, or Clinton, Palin, God forbid, did not rely on a powerful, wealthy husband or father to energize her career. Worse still, she took no women’s studies class, never attended the Ivy League, and shoots moose. The danger is not just that Sarah Palin could win McCain the election, but she could expose the entire flimsy structure of doctrinaire liberalism as the hypocrisy — and chauvinism — it has become.
#208

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm, quasimodo said:

when did marion the librarian become a left wing wacko? She used to be so nice.
#209

On September 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm, Rob said:

but with the multiple page format now in use here which i truly hate

Do we know WHY they changed to this annoying format?
#210

On September 6th, 2008 at 3:38 pm, Patronedheart said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm, atheling said:

I think it was Huckabee that said, “If you’re taking major flack, it usually means you’re over the target.”
I don’t think that the dems stand a chance in november. John McCain made a brilliant move, and it’s going to pay off for him. The libtards are scurrying to find the most trivial things to smear Palin with. If a pregnant daughter and alleged banned book list are all the dems have, they got nothin, and of course they’re going to start resorting to lies to win. That’s the epitome of a democrap.
#211

On September 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm, atheling said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 3:38 pm, Patronedheart said:

Agreed. I’ve got a feeling that this is going to be a landslide. I’ve been paying attention since the 70’s and never have I seen so many people excited about winning an election as this one - and actually working by volunteering to win it.

And I’m one of those volunteers.

McCain-Palin 2008!
#212

On September 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm, Patronedheart said:

As am I. Palin’s acceptance speech brought a tear to my eye. For once after 2 years of oppressing democratic rule, I have hope for something better.
#213

On September 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm, Paul-Cincy said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm, Bruce said:
PDS gone wild
People must start to understand how these things work. It is not important if a smear has any basis in fact to it - the idea is that they hope the target will waste time attempting to answer the smear,

It’s usually the glare of the spotlight which is so painful, not the content of the attack. The glare causes feelings of shame and humiliation in the target. There needs to be a major change in the methods of the mainstream media.
#214

On September 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pm, RobM1981 said:

Which Twain book is she supposed to have banned, again? Was it “Huckleberry Finn,” or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?”

Both are listed. Unfortunately, only one is a book. The other is a character in a book.

You normally don’t have to read too deeply to detect a hoax.

Unless, of course, you’re a liberal, or a liberal reporter. Then you have to pull your thumb out of your mouth (ahem), put down your blankee, and regurgitate whatever you are told.

Talk about losers…
#215

On September 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm, gco said:

An ordinary citizen got involved in the PTA at her kids’ school. Her effective leadership qualities made a difference at that level, and she parlayed that talent into city council membership, then two mayoral terms, then the gevernorship of her state, and now vice-presidential candidacy.

This is an example how the founding fathers envisioned Americans pursuing elected office - they would go about the business of thier lives and communities (without marching orders from a community organizer), and the ones who lead effectively would move up until they’ve had enough or reached the top.

The prospect of an entrenched “political class” with a system that mentors hate-filled, snot-nosed, power-hungry wannabe dictators to be career politicians was a danger that the framers recognized; it’s a shame that too few of today’s American citizens recognize it. However, they can see the two approaches, and the people associated with those approaches, in stark, explicit contrast.

This contrast shows the Obamarxists for what they really are, and it’s the last thing they ever thought would happen at this point, when the game was all but won. To paraphrase the closing lines from another poster: “It’s killing them, and I’m loving it!”
#216

On September 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm, Wayfaring Stranger said:

Do we know WHY they changed to this annoying format?

I think it was after one of MM’s post got so many comments (over 400 IIRC) that the Leave a comment box didn’t display and people couldn’t post to that thread.
#217

On September 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm, nyk said:

If you have thin skin, of course you’re going to complain about being attacked by others. That’s how you experience life. Palin doesn’t have time to dwell on being hurt. She has so many other things she cares about.

Um…she has complained about being attacked:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-accuses-o.html

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us here - just why are you supporting Obama? There is no record of accomplishment, no demonstrated record supporting his ability to get anything done, no record of “reaching ariss the isle”, nothing to suggest he has the ability to turn his words into action.

I think that implying that supporting Obama is merely a matter of race says more about you than it does about his supporters. I support him because I oppose the war, I’m pro-choice, anti-torture (and I define everything John McCain now defines as not torture as…well, torture. It’s doubly interesting since, according to John McCain, his torture included sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating. Guess if he no longer sees those things as torture — and he doesn’t these days — then he himself wasn’t tortured. Curious. But I digress…), I believe in man-made global warming, I believe people — particularly children — should have health care, I believe stem cell research could save millions of lives…and frankly, I believe community organizing is an admirable job.

If you disagree on those opinions — and I’m sure you do — that’s fine, but that’s not the issues at debate in your question. The point is, I oppose the Republican platform, and John McCain/Sarah Palin’s take on nearly every issue. So why on Earth would I ever vote for them?
#218

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:12 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

NYK: If your are pro-choice, then you are responsible for the deaths of 40 to 50 million unborn babies. If you are anti-torture, then you would be responsible for another 9/11 attack or worse. Kahlid Sheik Muhammad thought that he would be read Miranda rights after 9/11, and that is because of an attitude like yours. If you believe in global warming, then you will be responsible for the decline in the standard of living of everyone in the USA and for any future energy crisis. If you believe in universal healthcare, the you are a socialist and you will be responsible for the eventual rationing of healthcare based on the government’s budget. You will be responsible for politicized healthcare. Finally, the argument over stem cell research has never been about stem cells but about embryonic stem cells. You would destroy one innocent life to save another, and that is the horror of eugenics reborn.
#219

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pm, Rob said:

nyk said: i think that implying that supporting Obama is merely a matter of race says more about you than it does about his supporters. I support him because I oppose the war, I’m pro-choice, anti-torture I believe in man-made global warming, I believe people — particularly children — should have health care, I believe stem cell research could save millions of lives…and frankly, I believe community organizing is an admirable job.

Just looking at that list, I am:
pro-war
pro-choice
pro-torture
global warming is a scam
anti-MY taxes for health care
pro-stem cell
anti-rabble rousers
AND anti-immigration

While not my total cup of tea, Palin is closer to my views than the Obamasiah Black-Hole that wants to suck in all my money. I will have to go with McAmnesty/Palin because Palin is very conservative.
#220

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm, nyk said:

publiuswarmac9999 said:

With all due respect, I don’t really care about your political opinions, nor do I care how you view mine. My post was in response to a commenter who wondered aloud (so to speak) why those who support Obama do so. I enumerated my reasons. And they, much like your own, I’m sure, are not likely to be changed by your post.

Anyway, enjoy your Saturday night, all.
#221

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pm, nyk said:

AND anti-immigration

Rob, I don’t want to get into a debate but I just want to ask: are you anti ALL immigration or just illegal immigration?
#222

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm, dakine said:

nyk, he’s just against non-white immigration.

FilmLadd, your whole “hive-mind” thing officially jumped the shark about 50 posts ago. Mix it up a little brah. You’re a creative guy (at least according to your website).
#223

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:41 pm, Rob said:

Rob, I don’t want to get into a debate but I just want to ask: are you anti ALL immigration or just illegal immigration?

I would welcome positive additions to this nation if they have something to add that will benefit me and my country and they have a sponsor that is willing to see to their housing and upkeep. No criminals, no free-loaders. They check in with the government regularly for a few years, prove their worth and then their spouse and two children can join them. One crime and out they AND their family go, and if they disappear, their sponsor is locked up until they are found…their sponsor had better be REAL sure about them before they take on the responsibility.

The McAmnesty and Bush argument that we need all the losers of Mexico to do the jobs that Americans won’t do is as full of crapola as Al Bore and his global warming scam.
#224

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:44 pm, nyc123me said:

Stupid question nyk - I believe I can answer that: anti ILLEGAL immigration - it would seem blatantly obvious, but it’s a distinction dems never make, particularly when it comes to criticizing Republicans.
#225

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm, nyk said:

I would welcome positive additions to this nation…

Um…okay. I really was just curious. Thanks for responding.

FilmLadd, your whole “hive-mind” thing officially jumped the shark about 50 posts ago.

First off — hi dakine! Nice to see you here! Been a little while. You don’t call, you don’t write…What? All of a sudden you’re too good for the old nay-bah-hood?

Not only do I find the “hive mind” thing dumb as a result of sheer overuse (diversify your insult portfolio, you know what I mean?) I found it uproariously funny that I saw another commenter use it in a post yesterday. Hive mind (or should I say, “regurgitative mind”), indeed!
#226

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:55 pm, nyk said:

nyc123knowitall wrote:

Stupid question nyk - I believe I can answer that: anti ILLEGAL immigration

Actually, not a stupid question and I’ll thank you not to decide what other people think. PLUS, you’re wrong. Rob, as shown in his answer, has a very specific list of required criteria before he supports any form of immigration — it’s not as clear as “legal” versus “illegal.” But thanks for your erroneous input.
#227

On September 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, Rob said:

Rob, as shown in his answer, has a very specific list of required criteria before he supports any form of immigration.

At the age of 18 my great, great grandfather came to America in the 1800’s with a ticket paid for by his sponser…indentured servitude. He was given room and board and a job. The final part of his job was to work on a cattle drive from the East to California where he was given several cattle as final pay.

We have politically correctly destroyed a good system by deciding that letting in the wretched refuse of other countries is somehow a good thing.
#228

On September 6th, 2008 at 8:06 pm, Azygos said:

This question from page 2 was answered by someone on page 1, but with the multiple page format now in use here which i truly hate, people aren’t nearly as likely to read all the comments.
This is todays complaint (I promise only one a day) about the new multiple page format. Thank you.

I’ll second that thought.

Maybe we should start saying outrageous things about Obama like he was for letting babies born alive left to be in the closet to die…

Wait, never mind.
#229

On September 6th, 2008 at 8:08 pm, nyk said:

We have politically correctly destroyed a good system by deciding that letting in the wretched refuse of other countries is somehow a good thing.

I disagree, but that’s the beauty of being American, isn’t it? Anyway, gotta go. I have to go to a hen party that I’m dreading (it’s just that they’re so damn CORNY). Anyway, as I sad before: Good night, all.
#230

On September 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm, Rob said:

They try to ban Huckleberry Finn for language like this:

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, page 46

“But I never see a nigger that wouldn’t lie. Shucks!”
#231

On September 6th, 2008 at 9:18 pm, rooster said:

OT,
nyk = atheist/libtard

Environment Minister calls global warming fears ‘hysterical psuedo-religion’… (Drudge Report)
#232

On September 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pm, sandyb said:

Agreed. I’ve got a feeling that this is going to be a landslide. I’ve been paying attention since the 70’s and never have I seen so many people excited about winning an election as this one - and actually working by volunteering to win it.

And I’m one of those volunteers.

McCain-Palin 2008!

I’m just as enthusiastic as everyone else (well, except lgm and bemused lib) about Gov. Palin, but how will we know about all those little ACORNS stuffing ballot boxes across the country and well-placed libs blocking overseas military ballots? What a bunch of screamin’ squirrels.
#233

On September 6th, 2008 at 10:48 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

Mrs. Malkin, this is an insult pure, plain and simple to me because I happen to have read a few of those, and what possible reason would anyone want to ban, Bridge to Terabithia, for instance.

It’s preposterous, and this is yet another.

If Obama’s idealism is soooo great, why does the left have to resort to such smears in order to have a chance to win?
#234

On September 6th, 2008 at 11:52 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm, dakine said:

FilmLadd, your whole “hive-mind” thing officially jumped the shark about 50 posts ago. Mix it up a little brah.

Not using the term as a derivative or as a gimmick. It is a description of what ails you: collectivism, hive-mind, herd, emotional hidden puppetmaster.

Brah.

In fact I’m thinking about making an entire website cataloging the hive mind…

And if that personal dig means that the collective has turned its head in earnest as a bit of a personal threat, bring it on, slime. Can’t wait.

Shotgun’s under my bed, come on over red rover.
#235

On September 7th, 2008 at 12:01 am, FilmLadd said:

Also - haven’t heard a single denial from any collectivist that they’re not.

Nada.

Zero.
#236

On September 7th, 2008 at 12:13 am, FilmLadd said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm, nyk said:

Not only do I find the “hive mind” thing dumb as a result of sheer overuse (diversify your insult portfolio, you know what I mean)

I could see how you would consider a precise description insulting.

I use it in the Randian sense: the collective, that sees mankind as a servant to itself.

The term “liberal” means next to nothing these days, and the same with “progressive.”

So, I will still use “hive-mind” to describe the evil of and behind your ideology.

I know good people who have died by your ideology. So as your enemy I’m entitled to call you by its name (hive-mind) and declare your nature exactly: evil.

And I’m very, very glad that it is annoying you.
#237

On September 7th, 2008 at 12:47 am, atheling said:

FilmLadd:

Your “hive mind” description reminds me of a book I read as a child, “A Wrinkle in Time”, where the evil central authority, “IT”, controls people’s minds through indoctrination.

From Wiki:

IT is the bodiless telepathic brain that dominates the planet of Camazotz. It speaks through The Man With Red Eyes and later through Charles Wallace, and is functionally part of the interstellar cloud of evil called the Black Thing. IT is described as slightly larger than a human brain. Housed near the “CENTRAL Central Intelligence” building, IT is said to pulse and quiver on its dais. Its aim is to enforce absolute conformity on Camazotz, with the claimed benefit of eliminating war, unhappiness and inefficiency. However, IT is aware of its cruelty, referring to “ITself” as “the Happiest Sadist”.

The book was written by Madeleine L’Engle - and as a child I never forgot the concept of horror towards something that controls people collectively.
#238

On September 7th, 2008 at 2:00 am, atheling said:

Hehe, it’s second on that list.
#239

On September 7th, 2008 at 2:06 am, SlimyBill said:

The Obama official site link goes to a memory hole.

Anyone got cache?
#240

On September 7th, 2008 at 2:16 am, rommsey said:

Maybe we should fight fire with fire, perhaps an independent group can lambaste Obama so the idiots out there really get confused!
#241

On September 7th, 2008 at 6:55 am, nyk said:

Your “hive mind” description reminds me of a book I read as a child

You read a book?

And I’m very, very glad that it is annoying you.

Not in the way you hope, I think. More in the, “Oh, jeez. This guy is so cheesy” way.
#242

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:00 am, DougT said:

FilmLadd (#234), dakine certainly doesn’t subscribe to a progressive ideology. (I’m only speaking up because dakine is about 6 hours behind the east coast.)

You’ll find dakine all about rational thought, free markets, individualism, sort of the polar opposite of the hive mind.

We had no way of knowing whether this esoteric term was intended as a shorthand insult or Randian jargon. Now we know it’s the latter.

If people aren’t indoctrinated into your politics and personal philosophy, it’s tough to take the jargon seriously, especially when you use it every post. Dakine was suggesting that you “mix it up” in order to keep people reading your posts and taking your ideas seriously. Nothing more than that.

In the world of discussion and debate, reality is how the ideas are perceived. Reality is how well you make yourself understood. Rand knew this. That’s why she wrote so many damn books.

I think dakine was just trying to help. Nyk’s positive response to dakine was because discussion with that person tends to be thoughtful and civil. Not because they agree on anything.

Also, nyk, I believe that you could be converted away from progressive politics. Perhaps not to conservative thinking, but at least a move toward libertarian notions. You seem open-minded enough to be interested in other ideas. Perhaps, deep down, you know something is lacking in how the current incumbent parties view the world. Or maybe you just like watching us make pompous asses of ourselves. I’m pretty good at that.
#243

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:03 am, FilmLadd said:

On September 7th, 2008 at 6:55 am, nyk’s lust for collectivist evil was revealed.
#244

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:05 am, FilmLadd said:

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:00 am, DougT said:

FilmLadd (#234), dakine certainly doesn’t subscribe to a progressive ideology. (I’m only speaking up because dakine is about 6 hours behind the east coast.)

Thanks DougT, didn’t get that from the singular post. Apologies Dankine.
#245

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:13 am, FilmLadd said:

The book was written by Madeleine L’Engle - and as a child I never forgot the concept of horror towards something that controls people collectively.

Yes, one of the influences; the concept is one that’s been around for a very long time, not just in science fiction. Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is a favorite of mine too, Clockwork Orange also.

I remember that creepy feeling when I was a kid reading that book, too. Very powerful.

Note the snarky snot balls thrown: “you read books?”
#246

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

BHO’s site erased the page, (it was never there comrade!), here’s the cached page while it lasts.
#247

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:52 am, Jim M. said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm, nyk said:

I think that implying that supporting Obama is merely a matter of race says more about you than it does about his supporters.

The attempt tp attack the messenger to back them off a line of inquiry is a well used tactic of the left. And taking that strategy and amping it up when racial preferences or simliar issues are raised is all too predictable - trying to turn the question on its head by painting the questioner as a racist for merely raising the issue.

Obama’s position was not much different from that of Hillary Clinton, yet over 90% of black voters sided with Obama versus roughly half of the rest of the Democrats. How would you explain that?

All my inquiry says about me is that I am not afraid to ask the question. White guilt does not work with me. And I can separate fact from fiction, words from deeds, to assess the potential of a person.

Obama’s position on the war has not been a consistent one. His first public statement noted that he would have done what Bush did. That view has been washed out when it became clear that was not going to curry favor with the left.

And Obama has zero history or record of showing anyone that he can turn his words into results. None. He is the consummate oppotunist and political player. A man without substance.

You are certainly entitled to form your own opinions, but you cross the line when you play hit and run with an unfounded and unsupported accusation of racism. Nice try. Your conduct only goes to out you as nothing more than a far left liberal tool for the Obama camp, sent to this site to agitate and foment your own brand of hate.
#248

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am, b-cat said:

FilmLadd, as I’ve told you before, I enjoy your posts, and I think you have an effective means of spotlighting collectivism in the individual.

I had a conservative friend over last night and mentioned your work here, and how I had noticed no one ever, ever denies being hive-mind.

Keep it up.
#249

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

Rather than be HONORABLE in their campaign initiative it appears that they really do aspire to the idea that it is better to launch any lie they can, keep it going as long as possible and then pretend like they never said it - IF and ONLY IF someone happens to notice that it is a lie, (otherwise let it flourish). These ‘people’ are despicable thugs. The least the BHO web site administrator could have done is put AN APOLOGY up on that page address and declare that the bloggers were wrong. The last post on the page:

By George from Laurel, MD Today at 5:51 am EDT (Updated Today at 5:51 am EDT)
We now know that the banned book remour is false, was does this website, of the man who is supposed to be a different type of politicain, keep this lie on his website.

Change indeed…

Which now reads:

ERROR: invalid page requested
#250

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:01 am, rooster said:

Also, nyk, I believe that you could be converted away from progressive politics. Perhaps not to conservative thinking, but at least a move toward libertarian notions.

Actually, nyk is a paid libtard. Paid by odumbo supporters to spew mindless crap on conservative blogs and radio shows.
source: Us
#251

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:04 am, jag5775 said:

Thank you, FilmLadd for the concept of hive mind–it clarifies for me what has been elusive. That flipped me to the Borg–funny how Hollywood sometimes inadvertently exposes itself. Another book worth noting is “Neither Five nor Three” with one of its sub-themes of how petty the attacks of the marxists were in NYC in the late 40’s. I think we are headed for a new low–as bad as the early 70’s. . .it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
#252

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am, DougT said:

Supporting Obama in the primary season might have been racially motivated for many black voters. But in the general, you can toss that notion out the window. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, usually receives 90% of the black vote. That’s a simple truth.

My question would be, what has been the affect of race on black voter registration? In 2004, only 68 or 69% of voting age blacks were registered. Only 87% of those voters turned out. That’s historically typical. If those numbers moved up, it would be interesting to know if the delta was caused by race. I don’t think the historical numbers are racially motivated though, Jim M. Only the difference would likely count.

As far as BO’s lack of experience and policy positions: they don’t matter to the typical voter. This is about two party politics.

I believe that the Dems are hoping for a reverse of the 1980 election. The country sucked so badly at the end of the Carter administration that Reagan won handily, and when conditions inevitably improved from the horrendous state they were in, Reagan crushed Mondale in 84. I think the Dems believe that the voters in 08 are going to feel about the GOP, the way we all felt about the Dems in 80. (They probably find significance in the symmetry of the years’ numbers, too.)

But, as he’ll continue to show over the next 58 days or so, McCain is not a continuation of Bush or old GOP ideas. BO’s only hope is that people believe that McCain is another four years of Bush. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Race, with the exception of increased black voter registration and turnout over historical norms, is not a factor. (Of course, a study will be done…to show that white non-hispanic voters turned out to prevent a black man from taking office, but we’ll deal with UC-Berkeley’s PoliSci professors later in the year.)
#253

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:21 am, DougT said:

effect, not affect…sheesh
#254

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:22 am, HappyGene said:

Liberal guest on Fox and Friends is still pushing the banned books and AIP membeship.
#255

On September 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am, lgm said:

Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

Sarah Palin cut taxes when she was mayor. (insult omitted)

If so, she has the Republican fiscal touch: spend today & let the kids pay.

The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin’s legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla.
#256

On September 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am, DBNinKY said:

Is it “3AM” yet?
#257

On September 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am, DBNinKY said:

I do love Hawaii -
#258

On September 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am, Politicalguano said:

Thanks to the lies and hatred of the hate crime a day liberals, McCain & Palin now up 4% over BO/Bi. What is more, nothing can change that since what we see is a black man viciously attacking a white woman and her pregnant daughter - who would have thought the mainstream press would turn paranoid KKK propaganda into reality? To add salt to their own wounds, the BO team are working their way up to telling us that Palin should have aborted her last child. We are seeing the liberals for what they are -communist wannabe killers, who want to ruin our lives, tell us how and where to live, but of course exclude their own Politburo from any sacrifice. The UN is now telling everyone they want us to reduce our meat consumption 60%. They can use pictures of the starving people in Africa they are responsible for and rape instead as poster children for their new world of suffering campaign. The UN must be destroyed as an institution. They have devolved from a comedy to become organized criminals and now to mass murderers. How long before they want weapons of mass destruction? Sounds crazy but who would have thought that UN troops would watch and do nothing while tens of thousands of people in Kosovo were murdered and starved in concentration camps, and repeatedly millions of Africans are murdered and then go on to rape the survivors? No wonder they spend all their time attacking Israel and the USA - 2 countries which to date are not suicidal and provide distraction from massive UN crimes. No wonder Pelosi and Murtha are outraged we got rid of Saddam - he was so good at killing millions of people and we killed him-so you can see how Murtha and his beatch Pelosi think it is our troops who are murderers.
My sense of smell works and BO stinks!
#259

On September 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am, Snowfire said:

I was watching Obama interview with Stephanopoulus (sp?) a little while ago. They were talking about religion. Obama said, “You mean my Muslim faith?” Stephanopoulus corrected him saying, “You mean Christian.” This is as close to verbatim as I remember; you need to get the tape.
#260

On September 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am, PatriotRider said:

nyk said:
Your “hive mind” description reminds me of a book I read as a child
You read a book?

BWWAAAAHAHAHA! You libs slay me with your ability at a comeback. God! My pancreas! Whoo boy!

I’m not above slinging a zinger here and there but you trolls never fail to amaze me how when you can’t think of an intelligent, informed comeback or arguement you revert to your childhood. That is, asuming you are not still a child.
#261

On September 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am, St. Louis Blue said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 11:52 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm, dakine said:

FilmLadd, your whole “hive-mind” thing officially jumped the shark about 50 posts ago. Mix it up a little brah.

Dakine (aka King Pidgin-shtick) telling someone to mix it up!?!

That’s funny, I don’t care who you are…brah!
#262

On September 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, atheling said:

On September 7th, 2008 at 6:55 am, nyk said:

Cheap shot coming from a know nothing twit who can’t debate because she has no critical thinking skills, making it rather ironic, since this little twit is an affirmative action recipient like her Obamessiah.

I bet you’ve never read a serious book in your life. Your reading list is probably a litany of navel gazing propaganda veneered with self congratulatory nonsense with a “politics of envy” theme.

Pathetic.
#263

On September 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, FilmLadd said:

On September 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am, PatriotRider said:

My pancreas!

Didn’t catch that until the second reading. Laughed so hard it turned into a coughing spasm. Thank you

On September 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am, b-cat said:

FilmLadd, as I’ve told you before, I enjoy your posts, and I think you have an effective means of spotlighting collectivism in the individual.

I had a conservative friend over last night and mentioned your work here, and how I had noticed no one ever, ever denies being hive-mind.

Keep it up.

Thanks b. All of this has been a bit of “testing the waters” on a new website based on that concept.

Based on the reactions both negative and positive I believe I have a round-house punch. To be delivered about 30 days before the election.
#264

On September 7th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, PatriotRider said:

Sometimes it gets so tedious. Like a child who keeps asking “why?” no matter how many different ways you explain it. Most of the time you just need to send them to bed without any supper.
#265

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:21 pm, Lockstein13 said:

Off topic from “books”, but ON SMEARS:

how can we best hit back, wothout being “diverted” by the lies?

THIS video appealed to me greatly:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=2281
#266

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:27 pm, dakine said:

Thanks DougT…I’m glad somebody around here gets me.

atheling, you never disappoint in your ability to go to the ad hominem with folks holding differing viewpoints from your own. BTW, the “affirmative action” shot was borderline bigoted. You tend to show your true colors went going off on your overwrought and emotional vents. Rob, atheling. Atheling, Rob. Not much diff. One more BTW, the blind devotion you show to “your Sarah” is amusingly similar to the Obama worship this site is so found of lampooning.

FilmLadd, you may want to expand your “hive-mind” theory to explore its applicability to the social conservatives/religious right. Lots of examples to pull from on this site in fact.
#267

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:45 pm, dakine said:

“fond” I mean.
#268

On September 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

I get Time magazine for free, (for what reason I don’t know -?). The Sept 15 issue arrived and in an article by pond scum, senior editor, Nathan Thornburgh, on page 29:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin was as much about promoting conservative values as about promoting growth. “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 Emmons, couldn’t be reached for comment.

(According to pond scum, banning books is a conservative value diddenchaknow!)

Want more smear from pond scum? How about this on page 30:

…Palin’s staff and husband assembled a dossier of misbehavior by Wooten, which they tried to feed to his bosses. Among the charges: he shot a moose without a permit a few years back.

Yes Mr. pond scum, let’s all just ignore the tasering of a 10 year old boy, that’s just too irrelevant to bother mentioning, why waste ink…

But wait, there was enough ink to mention on page 27:

Did Palin fake the pregnancy of her son Trig?

The kossacks must be flagellating themselves for not inventing even worse lies seeing how easy it is to get anything they ~~cook~~ puke up printed in a trashy magazine like Time.
#269

On September 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm, atheling said:

On September 7th, 2008 at 8:27 pm, dakine said:

Captain Dogcatcher’s analysis is just as flawed as his political acumen.

Must be hard to be you, when you’re so wrong all the time.
#270

On September 8th, 2008 at 12:20 am, dakine said:

atheling, you’re actually a very nice example of the “hive-mind” mentality on the hard social conservative right. Very little original thought. Operate out of your cult playbook on all issues. Must be easy to be you when all you have to do when faced with any issue at all is simply open up your playbook and regurgitate the appropriate response. Either that or spew whatever “your Sarah” thinks regarding the matter at hand. lgm has his Obama his messiah and you have your Sarah your queen mother. Like I said, must be easy to be you. Boring and vacuous, but easy.
#271

On September 8th, 2008 at 12:54 am, atheling said:

Well, Captain Dogcatcher, I see you’ve been consulting a dictionary and thesaurus. I guess “sanctimonious” is wearing thin for you.

I wonder why you come here, when all you do is insult the people who comment? No one likes you here. Even when you lick “your man” chapoutier’s hand, he ignores you.

No one, absolutely no one, has ever thought of your comments as noteworthy, or interesting, or of any value here. Your “analyses” of anything is invariably pooh poohed by everyone here. No one ever speaks to you unless they mock or deride your arrogance and mean spiritedness.

You have been proven wrong again and again, so why should anyone consider what you say? It’s all worthless.

You’re the kind of person everyone ignores at the party, because you’re a pompous twit. And to prove it, I’ll bring it up every time your comments are slammed by someone here - when they’re not being ignored.
#272

On September 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm, dakine said:

Thanks for again underscoring my point about you atheling. You can’t be so dense that you don’t see the irony in your last comment can you? “Arrogance”? “Mean-spiritedness”? These terms define the tone of your presence on this site. Why is it that many of the more intelligent hard right posters around here are able to have civil and interesting discussions with the smart and articulate liberals who post here (e.g., chap, nyk, mj, Rusty, etc.), while you are only capable of rudeness, derision and personal attacks?

BTW, DougT is one of the two or three best posters on this board and he gets me, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
#273

On September 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm, nyk said:

this little twit is an affirmative action recipient like her Obamessiah.

Spoken like a good little regurgitator. At least you don’t even pretend to have an original thought. And for the record, if your proof that I’m an “affirmative action” recipient is that I’m a person of color, I’ll have to assume that you too have benefitted — greatly — by virtue of the fact that you’re a woman (which I’m still skeptical about).

You’re the kind of person everyone ignores at the party

Projecting, I think.

Arrogance”? “Mean-spiritedness”? These terms define [atheling's] tone of your presence on this site.

Yes. She’s every bad stereotype of conservatives personified. And pretty much incapable of having a discussion. Whatever. People this sour usually have pretty miserable lives, and I assume that’s the case here.

Anyway — enjoy the day, dakine.
#274

On September 14th, 2008 at 11:17 pm, TooMuchTime said:

I think it was Huckabee that said, “If you’re taking major flack, it usually means you’re over the target.”

Yes. This is true. My father flew 30 missions in B-17s over Germany in WWII. I once asked how he knew which target to bomb. His answer - “You know you’re over the target when you start getting flak.”