Ann Marie, This story has been discounted many times.  Harry Potter wasn't even published then. 

Nick and Hugh -

 Shhhhh! - ixnay!  Here we've just finally duped people into believing there's nothing to the "Sarah Practices Witchcraft" story, and then you guys have to come along point out her Supernatural Powers!

I mean, take just the Harry Potter books, for example - anyone reading this could easily Google, "J. K. Rowling Books", and checking the Wikipedia result, they'll clearly see that her first Harry Potter book wasn't published until 1997 (and not until Oct. '98 for the U. S. market).  And since Sarah compiled this list of books to ban back in 1996, as Ann Marie points out - well there you have it - PROOF that Palin can see into the future, due to her Supernatural Powers!

You guys must not have de-coded that latest "Top Secret" message from Rove's office correctly - it clearly warned all of us against divulging Party Secrets like this, under threat that he'd send the teams out to our homes to disable our RNC SSWAPS! (Super Secret Water and Air Purification Systems).  I sure hope Karl doesn't follow through on his threat - if you guys are forced to actually drink and breath the water and air we're secretly trying to pollute for everyone else, well, that would be just terrible!

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

If anyone wants to go to the original website, you can look at the above.  This is a response to multiple inquiries regarding the banning of books in Wasilla.  As you will clearly see, no books have ever been banned in Wasilla.  Period.

While this list of books (which came from a site indicating books that had ever been banned in the US and contains books that didn't get publish until after Palin had left office) has been shown over and over again to be false, blogs continue to claim that it is true.

The sad fact of the matter is that liberals will apparently do anything to make sure Obama becomes President, including lying about Sarah Palin.  This list was also published on Obama's Community Forum and various other sites.  Meanwhile Obama's aides have come up with equally ridiculous statements, including the one where they claim that Sarah Palin is a nazi-sympathizer (is this what Obama means when he claims to be taking the high road?).

As someone who is neither a Republican or a Democrat, I'm sincerely saddened by the tone of this campaign.  At one time I could have voted for Obama over McCain.  Had Obama simply said, "Palin isn't qualified", he would have had my vote.  However, after seeing these lies continuously spread around about each other, I've decided to vote Libertarian.  The Libertarian party may not be perfect, but at least they maintain a higher standard of ethics than either McCain or Obama.

Ann-Marie, here is your quote:  "But I am more interested in what really went on. Like I said I could care less what books she did or didnt try to ban but if she was talking about banning a single book then that is more than enough reason for me to think less of her. What is this the dark ages? Are we going to have witch trials again?"

Despite the evidence that you have been presented with, you still say, "she did or didn't try to ban".  In other words, you still think that it could be true, despite the evidence from sources like the library in Wasilla, Snopes, Factcheck, etc.  One has to wonder if you are just engaging in wishful thinking here.

However, I would agree with your statement about witch trials.  However, you should ask yourself who is being accused of being a witch here.  But here is your logic.  In your own words, you could care less what books she did or didn't try to ban.  Therefore,  she didn't ban any books (as proved over and over again from all the sources above), so she must have wanted to ban the books.  The lack of evidence is proof that she is guilty.  Burn her, burn her.

To paraphrase from Monty Python: 

I agree Pamela.  Excellent point! There are not only blogs on both sides that are lying, but also tv commercials, debates, journalists, etc.  Its very sad when you have to watch a debate and then go to Factcheck.com to see which of the 2 major candidates (or their vice-presidents) has been lying more.  A good reason, I suspect, why all 5 candidates for President (including Libertarian, Constitution and Independent parties) should have been at the debate, not just McCain and Obama.

In previous elections, I have voted for the "lesser of two evils".  However, the evils have now gotten so out of control, that I can't, in good conscience, vote for either one.  Pamela, I couldn't agree with your assessment more. Can't people finally take this opportunity to vote their conscience, rather than engage in a witch trial of the candidate we hate more, in defense of the candidate we hate less?

Linda, I thought preventing "censorship" was the whole purpose of this discussion, or did I miss something?

If you stop and look at the political climate, you will realize that sadly we have a situation where Obama's representatives are linking McCain to George Wallace and McCain's representatives are linking him to Louis Farrakhan.  My point is, this is all silliness and intellectual laziness.  The solution is to do better research and to admit when you make a mistake.  Instead some here would like to censor comments, which brings us back to the very original post about censorting books.  Anne-Marie, I formally apologize.  Your posting did serve a purpose.  I thought this fake story about book banning was further silliness, but Linda's comments just proved an important point about censorship.

Linda, I'm having this conversation with the person who proposed censoring my comment (you).  Furthermore, if you want to misquote me, then you should make sure you get it right (apparently you feel no qualms about misquoting me, but you do feel no remorse about the fictional list of banned books that were used to smear Sarah Palin). 

I said that not following up on the research represented laziness.  I stick by this assessment, but if you'd like to defend laziness, more power to you.  As for using the word "dangerous", I was referring to laziness being dangerous, not any particular person on this blog.  If you'd like to argue that laziness is not dangerous, please feel free.  As for being "blind", I referred to those people who read blogs and don't check the facts.  Again, if you'd like to defend people who don't check the facts, please feel free.

Personally I'm still waiting for the lies to be corrected (we all know, now, that Sarah Palin did not ban any books and that the original list was both a fake and identified as fake a number of weeks ago).  The closest I've read to a correction is that the list "may" not have been correct, but that it was still okay to post these lies because she is a dangerous person (the lack of evidence apparently proves her guilt).  Personally I expect better.

God bless everyone who identifies and points out the lies that are told about any of the candidates (Republicans or Democrats).  We should remember that all 4 leaders are essentially good people who aren't Satan-worshippers or child molesters.  And yes, this applies to the rumors/lies about Obama being a Moslem/terrorist, as well as the rumors/lies about Palin being a book-banner.  Is this so terribly controversial that it deserves a call for censor?

Linda, I'm afraid there is no conspiracy theory on my "false identity".  The fact of the matter is that I simply forgot to include my name; there was no attempt to be anonymous.  If you want me to clarify, I'll go through the entire list of comments and identify which ones were mine. 

As for my "getting a grip", apparently you feel that insulting me is a reasonable debate tactic.  Of course you can argue that "I started it", which brings this debate to the level of 5th graders.  Even more effective is the argument you've made saying that because some Republican somewhere limited your free speech (and I must be a Republican because I am defending Sarah Palin against the false accusations posted here), that you have the right to propose doing the same thing.

As for your comments being deleted because you indicated support for Senator Obama, my question is how that made you feel?  Perhaps like your freedom of speech was being violated?  That some people wanted to limit your rights?  I suspect you felt all of these.  This is my point.  I do respect the fact that Ann-Marie (who I don't know) doesn't limit speech, and I suspect that she recognizes how hypocritical that would be given the subject.  Thank goodness for freedom of speech and for bloggers who respect this.

Coming back to what those Republicans did to you, I would also note that I'm not a Republican myself, so using your hurt feelings as a justification for limiting my free speech makes no sense (it wouldn't make any sense either way, because I have never suggested removing one of your comments).

I see John's email above; apparently I'm not the only one who feels that it is sad that this post has STILL not been corrected.  If we can return to the original posting and not get into personal accusations, we could have a reasonable discussion on why it is valid to continue posting items that are known to be false.

Ann-Marie, can you please clarify the following statement:  "I still believe that some of those books were probably on that list, not all of course, but some."  What list are you referring to?  I thought we had consensus that there never was a list of banned books, but maybe there was no such consensus.  The fact that the list you identify on this blog comes in the same alphabetical order, with the same typos, as another website (I believe that its a University of Florida website) which notes that it is a list of books that has ever been banned in the US (not a list of books banned by Sarah Palin), should finally put the falsity of this list to rest.

As for why Palin asked the question she asked, the reality is that none of us knows.  It may have been because she was planning to ban books and she wanted to know how to go about it.  It may have been purely hypothetical.  It may have been because some people were asking about the process for removing or moving books from the library and she wanted to tell them what the official procedure was (apparently there is an official procedure at that library, but it has only been successful at moving books - from children's books to adolescents book - but not banning them).  In the end, none of us can read her mind.  However, what we do know from the Wasilla Public Library, was that she never tried to ban ANY books.  If she was so against freedom of speeh and so in favor of book banning, can you explain why she never even made an attempt to ban 1 book?

Did you Know that Senator Obama Also Has a List of Books He Tried to Ban as US Senator?

Here's a LIST OF BOOKS that Barack Obama WANTED TO BAN!!!

The Federalist Papers:  Alexander Hamilton

Two Treatises of Government:  John Locke

Thomas Paine:  Collected Writings:  Thomas Paine

Derelictiion of Duty:  The Eyewitness Account of How President Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term Natioinal Security:  Robert Patterson

Thomas Jefferson, Writings:  Thomas Jefferson

The Declaration of Independence and Other Great Documents of American History:  John Grafton

George Washington, Writiings:  George Washington

James Madison, Writings:  James Madison

Alexander Hamilton, Writings:  Alexander Hamilton

Levithian:  Thomas Hobbes

Now before anyone complains that this list is completely made up and there is no evidence that Obama really wanted to ban these books, I would agree.  This list comes from Amazon.com and is listed as the top 10 books for politically conservative readers (but we know that Obama is not a conservative, so is it really such a stretch that he would want to ban these books?  I'm sure the illogic is looking quite reasonable to some).  It is not a list of books that Obama tried to ban.  However, maybe then I should change the title of this entry to:

Here's a LIST OF BOOKS that Barack Obama POSSIBLY WANTED TO BAN!!!

Does anyone feel better?

Just in case there is still any doubt (there still seems to be some), here is the letter from the City of Wasilla regarding banned books.  This should be the final word, unless someone has a better piece of evidence unknown to the library.

================

We at the City of Wasilla have received many emails and requests for information about “banned or
censored” books at the Wasilla Library while former Mayor Palin was in office.  We have no records of
any books being “banned or censored” ever.

Below is the policy to request reconsideration of library materials:
 
Reconsideration Requests of Library Materials 
 
In accordance with the Wasilla Public Library Collection Development Policy, the library, “…strives to
achieve a balanced collection of materials in the major information categories, as well as a fiction
collection calculated to satisfy the widest possible variety of tastes.  All viewpoints and opinions on
controversial subjects will be represented whenever possible… Wasilla Public Library recognizes the
right of every citizen to read and gather information, and his or her right to freedom from censorship by
other persons.  Many books are controversial and any given item may offend some persons.  However,
selections for this library will not be made on the basis of anticipated approval or disapproval, but solely
on the merits of the material in relation to the building of the collection and to serving the interests of all
readers.  This library holds censorship to be a purely individual matter and declares that – while anyone is
free to reject for himself books and other materials of which he does not approve – he cannot exercise this
right of censorship to restrict the freedom of others.” 

The Library conducts a systematic process whenever a Matanuska-Susitna Library Network cardholder
requests the reconsideration of an item in the library collection.  The first step in the process is the patron
speaking with the library director, who listens to the patron concerns and explains how materials are
selected for the library’s collection.  It is the policy of Wasilla Public Library that all challenged materials
remain in circulation until a final decision is reached and a challenged item may go through the
reconsideration process only once within a twelve month period.
 
Our records indicate the following actions requested by library patrons:

Year of Challenge  Item Challenged   Result
1986   Angel Dust Blues by Todd Strasser  Creation of “Young Adult” section in
library and placement of item in section
1986  Bumps in the Night by Harvey Allard  Remained on shelf  
1997  Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea  Remained on shelf
Newman
2005  America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide  Remained on shelf
to Democracy Inaction by Jon Stewart
2007  The Abduction by Mette Newth  Remained on shelf

Thank you for your interest in the Wasilla Public Library policy.
 
Mayor Dianne M. Keller

I agree with Cheri as well.  I'm not at all for banning books, but I don't think its unreasonable to classify books into child/adolescent/adult sections. I also think its reasonable to exclude erotica from all sections of the library. This is not because I don't think people should have the right to read erotica (some of it is very well written), but because I think individuals should buy it themselves if they want to read it, not burden the taxpayer.

As for the books on this fake Sarah Palin's list of banned books, I have to admit I haven't read all of them, but I don't see anything that could not be in a general reading section of any library (although for whatever reason, all of the books on this list have been banned at some time somewhere in the US).  However, I think Inna is missing the point when she says that we should only limit ourselves to discussing the books in the list above.  Why?  This is a very small list of the books that are included in the public library.  Are these the only books you have ready Inna?

The key question is, however, how do you decide what is not permissible.  I have argued against including erotica.  Others might want to exclude books based on political content (banning Bill O'Reilly's book, for example).  The decision becomes even more complicated when you talk about books like Hitler's Mein Kampf.  Do we not limit anything as Inna suggests, or do we carefully step down the slippery slope and hope not to fall?  I'm not sure I have a good answer but its certainly an interesting debate.

Inna, you have stated your argument well (if you didn't already admit it, I would have guessed that you hold a degree in English lit). I always respect someone who is well read.  Mea culpa for my snarky comment about your book-reading experience; was merely responding to your somewhat over-the-top comment to Kathy, "I trust you have read at least a few of them, right?"

I would reiterate my point that I don't see any of the books on the fake Sarah Palin list which I would ban or limit or otherwise restrict.  I furthermore don't see why any of these books were banned.  Banniing this books is odious, which is why I was so offended by the original false posting.  To me charging someone with censorship is like charging them with racism; they are words that can be greatly misused.

As Cheri mentioned, her library in college had copies of Playboy.  As you said, your son's primary school library doesn't contain a copy of Playboy.  I would guess (please correct me if I'm wrong) that most libraries in the US don't have a copy of Mein Kampf.  Therefore, whether you like it or not, decisions about what is bought and what isn't are being made every day.  Which brings me back to your very interesting question: "Do you really want the current morals and philosophies to have that much effect on what information is available to the citizenry, esepecially kids?"

I would answer a different question.  Given that there is at least some control on how taxpayer money is used to select D.H. Lawrence but not Larry Flynt, the Bible but not the Koran, etc., who do I want making these decisions?  Do I want it to be made by parents and other representatives of the taxpayer community, or do I want it to be made by a government bureaucrat who thinks that they know best? My answer is that I trust more in the judgement of the community than I do the representatives of the bureaucracy (but this explains why I'm a Libertarian).

You didn't answer though my question about using taxpayer money to put a copy of Mein Kampf in a public library?  I'm asking this not because I have a strong opinion, but because I think its an intriguing question.  If we aren't to ban anything, then certainly we would have to agree for including this hideous book in the library. On the other hand, what if people want to ban the Audacity of Hope (which, relative to nothing in particular, is currently available on every street corner here in the city I'm travelling in, Addis Ababa).  And what about the Bible?  Do most public libraries include a copy of the Bible and the Koran?  If they don't, is this censorship?

Thanks for the lively debate; it certainly makes for a fun evening in Addis (where sadly you can't get SportCenter).

"No official should ever ask that in a Democratic society, NEVER!" - Ann-Marie

Funny, I thought that in a Democratic society, you could ask whatever you wanted to ask; say whatever you wanted to say (with the exception of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, of course).  I thought it was only in a non-Democratic society where people tell you what you are, or are not, allowed to say?

As noted by the Mayor of Wasilla, Wasilla clearly had a process for censoring or moving books, a process which they clearly never used to censor any book.  However, you still haven't explained why, if Sarah Palin asked that question in order to ban books, why she never tried to use the due process in order to even try to ban one book.  Not one.

Inna, I appreciate the consistency in your arguments regarding both Mein Kampf and the Koran (and presumably the Bible as well).  I don't disagree with you. 

However, I'm not sure I would have gone so far as to say that Mein Kampf is "necessary reading".  There are certainly a lot of other books I would choose to read before that.  And as for my comment that Mein Kampf is "vile", I suspect that i'm not the only one with this opinion.

Ann-Marie:  Yes, communities are made up of a variety of people of different races, ethnic backgrounds, religions and ages.  Fantastic!  So why shouldn't we trust communities to do the right things?  Why would anyone prefer a bureaucrat, who may not reflect the diversity of the community?  Personally, I'm more scared of the bureaucrat who isn't accountable than the crowd which occasionally makes serious (read "The Wisdom of Crowds"; an excellent introduction to the value of crowds).  

If we really wanted to assure that those diverse communities didn't have any say in decisionmaking, then we could cancel all of our elections and just appoint all of our officials.  I suspect that such fascism wouldn't be very appealing to either of us.

Inna:  I realize that you use the term "moral righteousness" with the same disdain you might use the term "child molester" or "wife beater", but I'd be a bit careful about condemning morality in total.  As i've learned, everyone is a sinner, regardless of their personal faith.  People of faith are inevitably hypocrits, because they violate their own code of conduct.  Those without morals are not hypocrits, because they have no morals.  Between the two, I'd much rather be a hypocrit (but that's just me).

As for the "protectionism" you rightly condemn, I would note that its Obama/Biden, not McCain/Palin, who are the protectionist.  As I'm sure you know, Obama has said he wants to renegotiate NAFTA (not good for Canada or Mexico; or even the US).  In the current economic crisis, protectionism is the last thing we need.  Protectionism is a bad thing and we should condemn it, but let's remember who is the protectionist.

As for cultural ignorance, I agree that there is far too much of that in youth (but I'd add adults to this as well).  I also don't think we help young people when we ignore facts (still waiting for the correction of the original posting from this blog...guess I'll be waiting a long time) and engage in partisanship without researching and seeking the truth.

As for cultural ignorance, having just visited my 84th country, having lived in Europe, Africa, the US and Latin America, I certainly don't think it applies to me.  Neither does your concern about me trying to "protect my children".  However, as a single person, I'm again more comfortable with parent's deciding about whether Playboy should or should not be in their local library, rather than some bureaucrat.

Wow Inna, not sure where that comment about a homogenous society comes from.  I thought we were having a mature debate, not engaging in childish name-calling.  Where have I said that I prefer a homogenous society?  After all, you don't know if I'm white or black or Asian or Indian or anything else.  So where does such disdain come from?  Does this represent the tolerance you want others to express for your own views?  Is this a good example of "cultural ignorance"?

Thanks Tchaka.  I mistakenly thought that they didn't have it, but I'm staying at the Hilton n Addis and I did run across it tonight (England vs. Belarus in World Cup Qualifiers; Go England).  I'm not a big fan of ESPN, but thanks so much for pointing that out. 

Inna, to be honest, your comment sounds extremely elitist.  Those people in those small little towns are too conservative and too stupid to want books.  If it was up to them, they would ban everything but the Bible.  We need to have liberals come in from places like CA and NY to assure that the small towns have access to Lady Chatterly's Lover?

I realize that you think conservatives don't read (and worse yet, hick conservatives from rural areas have no desire to read), but since we are comparing personal experiences, my conservative friends are very well read, despite the "obvious disadvantage" of being conservative.

And what evidence do we have that small conservative towns wouldn't ban all the books they could get their hands on?  Well, the Wasilla Public Library, which is located in a small town and still somehow didn't manage to ban ONE book.  Not one.  Even though the town had procedures in place that could have been used to ban books.

As for library funds being federal, not local, could you provide a source?  I'm sure you are quite knowledgeable on these things, but as you've probably guessed, I'd like to see the evidence.  Thanks.

Inna, what about the question Palin asked makes you think that she wants a homogenous society?  Just trying to understand the logic here.

Fair enough.  My name is Steven.  I have a PhD in health economics and am a citizen of Ireland and the US.  I live in Mexico, currently in Ethiopia, after having just been in austria and hungary.  No mystery.

Apologies for using the word "hick".  That was my term, not your's.

I appreciate your opinion.  However, I disagree with your assertion that small towns would rush out to ban all kinds of books and severely limit the reading material of young people.  I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Thanks for the information on funding.

The only reason I came to this site is that I use "google alert" to see when my name appears on the internet.  My surname is the same as one of the authors on the fake list, so I was receiving numerous messages with this fake list every day.  I therefore went to one of the other blogs and began to do research.  What I found, in terms of posting this fake list long after it was known to be fake, really disturbed me.  As I said many times before, I'm not supporting either McCain or Obama.  I nonetheless find this kind of distortion (on all sides) to be very disturbing.

Ann-Marie,

Thanks for the message.  I understand why you think book banning is an important issue.  I agree with you; it is an important issue.  However, here is what your blog still says, even after you have been proven wrong:

Here is the list of books Palin tried to have banned. There are some discripancies with some of the books due to the dates published. 

Can you see why some people (including myself) consider that this isn't about a fair an open discussion of book banning or the experience (or lack thereof) of Sarah Palin, but is about your insistence on not correcting something which is clearly false and, in the process, smearing a VP candidate?  I'm happy to debate you about what Palin might have meant when she asked the Librarian the question that so disturbs you (as a part-time academic, I have to say that this statement doesn't bother me; if she had tried to ban books, that would have bothered me).  However, it would be a very short debate because neither of us can read her mind.  All that we do know for certain is that the "list of books Palin tried to have banned" is a fake and is still listed on your blog as if it wasn't.

We could also have a debate on the "Fairness Doctrine" and how that can be used to stifle free speech.   I'm assuming that the Fairness Doctrine is something which you oppose?

P.S.  Excuse the changing fonts; not quite sure how to correct font sizes here.