- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
You are joking, correct? The linked You Tube video includes an interview of Bess. However, it also includes interviews of several other individuals, clips from local newspaper, etc. for it sources. No where in the clip does it "affirm that the source is Bess." In fact, the video is primarily about the firing of Emmons, not Bess' book being targeted.
What was the subject of my original post? That the source of Bess' booking being listed as being banned was Bess himself.
What phrase did I object to? That which said he finds himself in the spotlight. That would imply evidence outside himself, indicating his book was listed to be banned.
The fact of the matter is no books were banned or listed. The source of Bess' assertion that his book was to be banned is Bess.
I've even explicitly mention that attacking Palin on inquiring about books being banned is legitimate. What is not legitimate is saying that Bess' book was banned, or that it was on a list to be banned, or implying there is a source for the latter outside of Bess himself.
What is absurd is this tacit defense of these actions. The facts are facts: Palin asked the librarian on three occasions about banning books and then fired the librarian for not being sufficiently loyal to her.
Then stick with that and drop the stupid Bess tangent.
That, in itself, is terrifying and completely indefensible.
-- sitka0230
While I don't like it, it is also not terrifying. Local communities always have issues with what the libraries stock, that is because the local government usually pays for it. Sometimes people don't like paying for what they don't like.
