Retractions?

[smeddley]

In the interest of journalistic fairness, it's strange I haven't seen a single retraction about the whole Palin/banned books thing from anyone who completely jumped on that bandwagon. (This is not to say you can't dislike her for a lot of other things - there is plenty I really disagree with her about! - but dislike her for real reasons, eh? It's the exact same as all the Obama/Muslim/terrorist crap, so if you complain about that, well, you'd damn well better set this straight or you're a bit of a hypocrite.)

On the bright side, we're all still alive today! Evidently the beam circulated in one direction just fine, no news yet on the other way. And, of course, then there's that big holding-our-breath time until October!

Comments

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

I've never seen that list before, but it seems this Snopes article only shows that the list is false. She still asked about removing books, and that's the problem I have with this particular incident. I don't think this falls anywhere near the Obama/terrorism thing.

Don't celebrate about the LHC just yet. If we're still here on Oct. 22nd, then we can high five each other.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Man, I wish I could copy-paste to this thing. But there's a USA Today article that kinda debates whether that's even true. Evidently, she did raise the issue insofar as the policy was concerned (there was, at the time, quite a bit of discussion) but all of the she wanted to ban books comes down to tone. Was she a new mayor concerned with city policy, or was she looking for a way to ban books herself? Well, it all depends on what your impressions of what she said and how she said it. But the fact is, she never asked for a single book to be banned or removed.

Did you see my last post? If I was in IT at CERN, I'd have a really, really, really hard time not doing that. Well, maybe. I guess it'd be pretty bad in a 'War of the Worlds' type way if people, you know, offed themselves because of it.

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

But why even raise the issue? Whether or not you subscribe to the events as reported by Time, just the fact that she would investigate the measure stinks of religious extremism seeping into policy. That, to me, is a no-no.

I just saw your post this morning after getting caught up on my FLIST. I REALLY want them to feign technical difficulties on their webcast when it happens.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Well, if you believe the story, the community had recently had the issue raise by other people - and her story is that she was trying to understand the policy, so that when asked about it, she could explain it. I'm not saying that's the truth, or that she didn't, perhaps, have it in the back of her mind, but it bugs me when people post 'facts' that are, indeed, simply untrue. If the stories read 'Palin's questions about book removal make me nervous' that's one thing. 'Palin bans books!' is quite a leap.

At least, maybe that other website (linked in the comments) could do that!

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm weird, but if someone asked me to inquire about removing books like that, I wouldn't give it a second of discussion. I don't think she would have done the same thing if someone asked, let's say, to ban AK-47s from being sold.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

So, (hypothetically) if you were a librarian and the new mayor wanted to know your reaction (to the press and the people) and your policy/plan of action if a group of people picketed the library demanding books be removed, you wouldn't discuss that with them? It's a pretty real scenario, there have been plenty of petitions/protests around here and if I were the politico in charge I'd want to know how my staff was going to react to that! Escpecially when it comes to the press front. I'd like to be sure that (however deserved) rotten tomato-throwing was not in the official policy.

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

I'm saying as MAYOR, I wouldn't float the issue. That's the perspective I'm talking about. Not the librarians.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Well, I would, in a strictly 'what is the policy' way, but I'm pretty sure no one would have even slightly mistaken my tone as one of 'I want to ban books'. I'd want to be sure no yahoo could waltz in and yank books off the shelf for... well, really any reason.

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

And you're defending said yahoo!

Also: http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

No, if she really wants to ban books I'll be the old hag screaming 'burn the witch!' at the front of the pyre (okay, not really, but you know). I'm just against all of the misinformation and rhetoric, and how quickly 'speculation' becomes 'fact' in the internet world. I'm also pointing this out to Obama supporters because this stuff hurts their credibility - even if it comes from other people, not them (I'm aware there's no official statement on it). Because when a bunch of pro-Obama people spew this all over the place, then people realize, well, that wasn't quite true, it devalues (rightly or wrongly) ALL of their arguements. The 'once a liar, always a liar' belief.

On the other hand, well-thought-out, well-reasoned 'this is exactly what happened, however, this is why even though she didn't ban any books it makes me nervous' is far more likely to win people over. Sure, there are mindless sheep (on both sides) for whom it will make no difference, but they have their minds made up and nothing can sway them from their party (even, say, revealing one of the candidates is really Morbo!). But reasoned discussions are meant to sway fringe voters, the ones who are weighing the issues and care about the policies. At least, it should be that way.

elaran linked that site yesterday, I've been checking it constantly... ;)

[aeamek.livejournal.com]

From my point of view, I wasn't going on internet speculation. I ignored everything about this subject that didn't come from a respected news source (Time, AP, etc.). I do, however, acknowledge that misinformation is passed on the intertubes by both sides, and it's unfortunate that it usually gets more exposure than the facts.

I think I'm resigned to the fact that McCain is going to win, but I'll keep out a small light of hope that he won't. The Republicans do a better job of hitting the soundbyte button than Dems do. Who cares if Palin initially supported the Bridge to Nowhere? Just say, "Thanks, but no thanks!" to the media and all is forgotten!!

My new political cause is "Keep McCain Alive Until 2012!"

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I would like to subscribe to your cause, please!

I'm in doubt that there are any 'reputable' news sources anymore, but that's a whole other anti-media rant that's been done to death. *sigh* Just yesterday I saw a 'news story' that was a internet hoax that'd been discredited weeks ago. I want a job as a news fact-checker - who wouldn't want to get paid to do NOTHING?!

[elaran.livejournal.com]

if she really wants to ban books I'll be the old hag screaming 'burn the witch!' at the front of the pyre
that is a glorious mental image. NOT LIKE I"M SAYING YOU'RE A HAG. *tries to avoid foot-in-mouth moment*

/seconds everything you said.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I will hold that hag comment against you forever. ;)

I think I could do a pretty passable hag, actually, especially if my hair's all ratty and tangled from sleeping on it funny.

[icecat.livejournal.com]

I think that Palin was trying to ban books - she asked the librarian about the possibility of banning books (to which the response was "No we don't ban books") not once but at least three times, maybe four, and then afterwards sacked the librarian from her job (presumably because she wouldn't ban books). WHO DOES THAT? It was only after public outcry that the librarian was reinstated.

If you want to get into semantics, no, she never outright asked the librarian to ban books. But when you ask someone a question several times more after it's been asked and answered, and then sack them afterwards, logical conclusion is she wanted books banned, and this librarian wouldn't do it, so she would replace her with someone who would.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Depending on the news source, obviously, but I read she approached her twice with different questions regarding their book banning policy. There had been (4?) challenges to the library (by others) and it's entirely possible that there were good reasons for asking the questions. And, again, depending on sources - she may or may not have fired the librarian vs. asking a bunch of staff to re-apply for their own jobs, and then there's even the question that IF there was a dismissal in the works, it started before the book incident. If after weighing the facts people think that that might have been her intent, that's fine - but you still can't state that as fact. And that's what's bothering me so much. Just like it would bother you if you looked on your f-page and saw entry after entry about Obama being Muslim (because he was, so there's that kernel of truth, but it's being overblown to 'omg he's a terrorist!' which is a tremendous, unfounded leap)

[foxfirefey]

The librarian's answer of "hell, no" is reputed by the source Snopes is quoting (Anne Kilkenny) as to the reason Palin later tried to fire the librarian:

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected
City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from
the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents
rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's
attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew
her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the
Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Whether or not that's the reason for the attempted firing is up for debate; this source suggests Palin may have asked for the librarian's resignation before the asking of censoring books came up. But asking the librarian two/three times (reports vary) about the banning/censoring of books as some sort of "loyalty test" and then trying to fire her is definitely creepomundo. The librarian did not end up being fired then because of a show of community support, from reports I've read:

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

The reports I've read say that the librian - and other staff memebers - were asked to reapply for their own jobs. This is not quite the same thing as firing, and happens rather often when new people/companies take over. Mr. Smeddley even had to do it once.

Again, I'm not saying that I support her (I disagree with her a lot) but if you're going to attack someone, do it right. Otherwise, you just look bad later. And, to play devil's advocate, there may indeed be other reasons to fire people. I've seen it happen a lot, especially in government, where people who have been in a job 'forever' simply don't do their job anymore or keep up with the times. Again, I'm not saying this is what happened. I don't know what happened. But conjecture should be reported as such, not as 'fact'.

[cazrolime.livejournal.com]

I for one am massively relieved that all our atoms have not been smashed. If something still goes horribly wrong and the universe is crushed inside-out through a man-made black hole, rest assured that I will be writing a strongly-worded letter of complaint to the scientists involved.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Oh, the smashing doesn't start until October 21st! You still have a little way to go.

I really want to read that letter, actually... :D

[cazrolime.livejournal.com]

Good, that gives me time to send them a preliminary letter so that in the follow-up I can say something with weight like "you will recall that I corresponded with you on the subject of possible universal annihilation on the date of month". Then they'll have to pay attention!

CERN
End of the World Laboratories
Geneva

To whom it may concern,

It has come to my attention that you are planning to turn on a very large and ominous-sounding machine designed to replicate the conditions immediately following the Big Bang. On behalf of several concerned parties who believe that this may cause unpleasant side-effects including destruction, widespread death and nose-bleeds in those under forty, I would like to request written confirmation that this machine will not in fact destroy the universe.

Should this unwanted scenario come to pass, you will be receiving a follow-up letter and perhaps even a petition.

Yours sincerely,

cazrolime

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

That... is brilliant. *bows* It deserves more than a comment space. When I get to a proper internet connection, do I have permission to repost?

[cazrolime.livejournal.com]

xD Wow, of course you do! <3

[oneworldvision.livejournal.com]

My professor brought that list of books Sarah Palin supposedly wanted to ban into class yesterday. Everyone was making fun of how innocuous most of the books were, yet nobody thought to question the veracity of the list. I just sat there and didn't say anything, because pissing this particular professor off just strikes me as a bad idea, but I feel kind of bad for not speaking up. Seems like people will believe anything.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and now that it's been discredited, I really hope (but doubt) it'll be brought up again. I understand your dilemma, but remember: oft-times discrecion is the better part of valor. Or pick your battles. Or whatever pithy saying most applies. I wouldn't feel bad about speaking up, endangering your grades/future, and probably not accomplishing anything.

The list is real enough, it's a nation-wide list of challenged books, though. So the discussion about how stupid it is is still very valid, at least!

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

I had never seen anything like that (specific list), only that she had questioned the librarian several times on the possibility and later fired her. Now, I don't know the validity of that, but honestly the book thing was the least of my concerns about her.

I just got in the most awkward conversation with someone in the hallway with someone I normally agree with, I assumed that she was a Democrat through and through, and she assumed that I loved Palin as she did. Yikes. We navigated through things alright, but it leaves me quite uncomfortable. Regardless of my feelings about the Republican party and McCain, I really, really dislike Palin.

In happier news, we were excited about the first beam run... but the live feed didn't work for us so we were huddled around the computer listening to BBC radio. It quite amused me, but now I'm dead exhausted. T. wishes he was taking Physics right now so he'd be able to go to school and talk about this all day.

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I know - my biggest problem with her (and I'm guessing it's yours, too) is the creation/evolution angle. And that was my point above - there are plenty of *real* issues to attack both sides over (in my case against Obama, not wanting to live in a socialist country! - and on the flip side, seperation of church and state!) that you don't want to muddly the waters with crap accusations (and both sides have had this happen). It just makes you look unintelligent later, you know? That's why I try to be very careful and try to qualify anything I don't know is true and make it pretty clear it's speculation. Can you react and have an opinion on speculation? Absolutely! Can you state it as indisputable fact? No.

I hated physics, to be honest. It was my least favorite subject, though as an engineer I did have to take more of it than the average student (1 year in high school and 2 e-level courses in college). I know *just* enough to be dangerous, I think. I also know how George can get off the middle of a frictionless frozen lake (honest, the first question on one of my college physics tests!).

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

I'm not a fan of physics either, but I'm much amused at how T. gets so excited about physics and chemistry. I had several physics friends in grad school, so I can't make many generalization about physicists (ahem), but I find theoretical physics to seem awful close to lunancy, I have a very difficult time wrapping my mind around such things, just not the way I think (such as claims that a mathematical formula is capable of answering every question possible, why the sky is blue, what is dna, everything, huh???) (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html). I find the LHC quite fascinating though, I mean this could really propel all of science and society quite dramatically, it makes me really curious on how things could change. I find it much more optimistic than the current issues with the upcoming election, even with the possibility of the world ending.

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

Hysterical!! (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1241&Itemid=29)

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

"And thank you to Brian for all the cups of tea."

Somehow, that comment just makes it. But it sounds like a frighteningly plausible scenario... ;)

[cyn2write.livejournal.com]

It really bugs me how people can come down on Palin for this... when there is absolutely no credible evidence of her intent to ban books. Absolutely none. And that's supposed to be more alarming to me than Obama's association with Ayers, a known terrorist?

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

Yup. Evil Republicans and all.

Oh, I meant to join the group, if it's okay that I'm not technically a *writer*, more just a *reader*?

::angryface::

[elaran.livejournal.com]

that irritates me. i really dislike her but damnit people i want you to agree with me for the right reasons. because like you said, this is the same as the obama/terrorist bullshit.

Re: ::angryface::

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I've always been very uncomfortable with hypocrisy - I think it's one of the worst things a person can be.

And, honestly, aren't there enough solid political reasons to argue without having to resort to ~*sensationalism*~?

...oh, right. This is America. Of course not!

[crimsonlotus84.livejournal.com]

we won't die till the particles collide. :P

[smeddley.livejournal.com]

It's funny, when I tell people about this they jokingly talk about 'putting their affairs in order'. I don't think they *quite* grasp the situation...