Ok, now we're really grasping at straws. Why not just face the facts, they formed a bi-partisan commission and decided there's a need to subpoena Palin's husband for evidence in the investigation. There's another thread for that discussion anyway, this one's mainly about the Library books.

Originally posted by Britguy
Any public official, appointed or elected, who uses their position to bully other staff and sack them for not fully supporting their agendas should be banned from public office, simple!

Ok, we need to apply this same standard to Hillary then. Remember Travel Gate? Remember the murder of Vince Foster? Remember Bill forcing his "whatever" in Monica's mouth? If those aren't prime examples of abuse of power I don't know what is...

There are a whole host of reasons for banning Democrats more than Republicans so you don't want to go down that road.

In fact I remember a girl that was killed in a car accident by some coward Kennedy guy. He didn't even get so much as a slap on the wrist.

I know Palin is an easy target for the left here but come on... You are really losing it and grasping at straws.

To me this entire thread needs to be closed based on the "new rules" but those rules seem to have some mystical fuzzy logic to them...

I do not support Palin in any way, but it's important to prove these allegations before making an outcry about them; otherwise we are no better than our opposition. I expect there will be real dirt to dig on her soon enough--there's nobody perfect enough to escape some criticism.

IMO the reason people are jumping on this "book banning" issue is because it seems like something Palin would do, given her leanings. But that is just the reason why it must be thoroughly questioned.

What I would like to know is exactly why the librarian was fired, even though she was reinstated the next day, and the only way to know that for sure is to ask the librarian, who doesn't appear terribly forthcoming about it.

Hello,

I thought maybe I would throw my hat into the ring regarding the "original' post" and round this rodeo back up.

Regardless of the fact that no books were specifically asked to be banned, what I would like to know is why the question about protocol was presented to the librarian in the first place? Hypothetical or not. And why on more than one occasion?

Seems like the question on how books are added and maintained in a library would be a pretty consistent procedure spelled out in some form and guideline. Otherwise every time a library changed librarians they could just pick and choose what was on the shelf as per their own personal preferences. As far as librarians in general, at least the ones I've dealt with, they are a pretty open minded bunch willing to provide a wide range of information to as many people as possible without personal prejudice.

And before the question is brought up, I will go ahead and answer it. Yes, allowing such things as blatant pornography, as outlined by LOCAL standards would be an issue decided upon by the constituents of that community, not by decree of who may be in power at the time. I just use this as an EXAMPLE. That does not mean that my library should not carry a copy of Mein Kampf, by Adolph Hitler (which it does have).

OK, I'm wandering down a volatile path here and will probably be jumped on by somebody so I'll just quit that train of thought while I'm ahead.

My issue here is why did the question (see hypothetical) have to be asked more than once? Didn't get the answer you wanted the first time? Librarians are generally a pretty knowledgeable group and should have the capacity to offer a fairly concise and understandable answer to a vague question the first time.

But that's just my opinion.