Can't help myself

So I've been trying to back off a bit on the politics for a few reasons: a) there's still 2 months to go and my blood pressure's already rising exponentially, and b) I really do have actual work to do instead of trolling news sites for the latest updates, and c) like many, I have family and friends who don't share my views, and I value my relationships with them too much to rant unchecked.

That being said, Heather Armstrong at dooce wrote a post that pretty much sums up my opinions perfectly right now, including why my blood pressure flies through the roof every time I think about Sarah Palin's book-banning ways.
"Any time I engage with one of my conservative friends or family members, or sometimes the conservative commenters on this website, it usually devolves into them screaming about WELFARE! and TAXES! and THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING MY MONEY AND GIVING IT TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T WORK! And what they don't understand is that this is not the issue at all. What I and many of my more liberal friends want is to HELP people, not give them a free ride, but also not to ignore those who would benefit from us tossing them a life jacket."
I'm still linking to the political news and such that I am reading in the sidebar, but I am trying to refrain from actual posts. That may or may not be successful.


  1. No, don't stop! I really enjoy your rants, maybe because I agree with them, but they're very well written and persuasive. Keep it up - friends and family will all come back to their senses after November!


  2. Heather Armstrong is right, the issue isn't about giving money to the lazy- it's about the same issue conservatives and liberals have always argued over, the role of the government. Conservatives feel it's immoral for the government forcefully take one person's honestly earned resources and distribute them to another deemed to be deserving. Fair, needy and deserving are arbitrary terms and decided by whomever is in power. I will and do share *my* resources with individuals and organizations *I* feel are deserving and as steward (Jake is the earner, heehee) of my money, that is my responsibility. Look at the Katrina debacle, for heaven's sake. How effective was the federal government in that situation (oh wait, I forgot- "George Bush doesn't care about black people")?

    I love your blog, BTW.

  3. I want to add that although we have different political ideaologies, I totally respect your opinions and I hope that that comes across in my comments. If not, I apologize and will work on my tact and courtesy. You always have such thoughful and persuasive posts and I enjoy reading and responding to them.

  4. Katy, you're fine! :-) I appreciate your responses as well, and I know you put effort into composing them. I like that we, at least, can have a civil discussion.

  5. Check this out-

    I know that M.M. is a conservative blogger, but everyone has an agenda (Librarians against Palin, for example). Makes sense what MM wrote, though- how could Harry Potter be banned in 2006 if it wasn't even written yet? Anyway, I came across this blog and I remembered the LAP post here at Grumpator. Do what you think it right.

  6. Haha...I linked to librarians against Palin only half seriously, though THEY'RE not the ones circulating lists - so far, they seem to just be tracking down primary sources about the issue. In fact, here is what the blog's creator mentioned in the comments as a response to that list: "However, this list is not accurate. While it is a list of commonly banned books, notice that it contains multiple Harry Potter books, which were not published in 1996. Therefore, this list cannot be viewed as credible."

    Everything I've read about the issue seems to indicate that Palin was inquiring about her ability to ban books as a hypothetical situation. I know there are several lists of titles circulating, but none of them have any verifiable source. I didn't need Michelle Malkin for that - several other librarian bloggers have already pointed out that the lists are entirely fictional.

    Unfortunately, fictitious lists only serve to distract the focus from the real problem, which, for me, is that she wanted to ban books in the first place, even hypothetically.

  7. You chose to link to LAP when you mentioned SPs book-banning ways. One would assume you considered it a reputable source, since you didn't state otherwise. If you already knew it wasn't, I think you were being misleading to your readers. If you have real sources about SPs book banning ways I'd love to see them as the focus of one of your blogs. I need more than hypothetical situations before I can label someone a book-banner.

  8. Katy, I don't know if you actually looked at the blog. Let me reiterate - Librarians Against Palin is NOT the source of the fictitious list of books supposedly banned by Palin. The author of the blog seems to be tracking down primary sources to get to the bottom of the whole story. I haven't seen any unsubstantiated accusations on that blog.

    The supposed list of books banned was a comment on a completely different blog, which was immediately smacked down by THAT blog's author (Jessamyn West at

    Perhaps I was a little misleading by my phrase "book banning ways", but that was a little tongue in cheek on my part. But as I said, it concerns me how concerned Palin was with her possible ability to ban books, as well as the fact that she did fire the librarian involved for not supporting her enough. Granted, she did reinstate the librarian, but only after a public outcry.

    Let me also emphasize that this is only ONE of very many issues that concern's me about Palin's beliefs, and it is a combination of these issues that makes it impossible for me to vote for her in any situation.

  9. No, when you say someone is a book-banner and then link to a site, it leads people to believe that is the source of your information, whether it is or not. It's misleading. THAT is what I'm saying. Maybe you could clarify and post a blog that does explain the situation, with real sources.

    I don't think anyone would expect you to vote for Palin in any case- you are a "raving liberal" and she self-identifies as conservative.


Post a Comment