Barnstable Village Cultural District

Anne Speyer

The following broadside was distributed in front of Sturgis Library, during librarian Anne Speyer's lecture there in 2014.  The hypocrisy of Speyer and library director Lucy Loomis is mind-numbing.  Yes, today, those who ban books and people celebrate Banned Books Week!  And those who don't give a damn about banned books in their own neighborhood present lectures on banned books and censorship.  Mind-numbing...

......................................

Librarians Banning Books Celebrate Banned Books Week

(What Anne Speyer’s Lecture Will Fail to Mention)

Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people—challenging social taboos or political values.

            —Jonathan Turley, left-wing legal scholar, George Washington University

Mostly, we have hypocrites in politics.  No surprise there.  We also have hypocrites in higher education.  No surprise there either.  We have hypocrites in the ranks of those professing to be advocates of freedom, including public librarians.  Now, that ought to be surprising.

     Is it not ironical that some (perhaps many) of the very organizations that promote Banned Books Week are either banners of books or apathetic when books are banned?  Is it not equally ironical that some (perhaps many!) of those who attend “Banned Books Discussions,” like “Bowdlerized, Banned, and Burned: An Investigation of Banned Books” presented at Sturgis Library by Director Anne Speyer of South Dennis Free Public Library, don’t give a damn when book or periodical banning occurs in their own backyards?  How to possibly understand their apathy, if not outright support?  Unsurprisingly, Speyer wouldn’t even respond to that question. 

     On June 19, 2012, Sturgis Library director Lucy Loomis PERMANENTLY BANNED not only The American Dissident and any books I’ve authored, but also me and the ideas of those published in the journal.  On that nefarious day, three cops showed up with the director in the room, where I was quietly working alone on my online college courses, to escort me out of the taxpayer-funded library without warning or even possibility of due process.  Imagine that not one library director in the entire Clams Library System of Cape Cod would respond to my Open Letter regarding that authoritarian decision, let alone express an iota of interest in it. The only response I received was an indirect one from Dan Santos, Sturgis Library Trustee at the time and now husband of Lucy Loomis.  Santos is current director of Barnstable’s Department of Public Works.  His only response regarding my Open Letter was:  “He is no more than an exhibitionist engaging in intellectual masturbation.” 

Banned for life, yet I never made threats, never made disturbances in that library, and I'd been going to it almost every day for several years!  What I did, however, was question and challenge IN WRITING, one week prior to the decree, Loomis’ hypocrisy regarding, especially, the written collection-development statement, borrowed from the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights,” that “libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view.”  Well, my point of view is certainly not provided in that library, which proves the point I’d made. 

     Loomis refused to present me with a written document stipulating the reason for her decision.  The library trustees also refused to do that.  It took the Massachusetts State Secretary of Records nine months later to order the library to make its records available to me (i.e., the public), since it determined the library was not only being funded by the public but was clearly serving a public purpose.  In those records, only an indirect comment by Loomis to Ted Lowry, president of the library trustees, indicated the reason for the decision:  “Because of his behavior when the police were here they almost arrested him—he can go from calm to extremely agitated in a matter of seconds.  So l believe this is the correct decision for the safety of the staff and public.”  No other reason or incident is mentioned in the library’s records!  In essence, the only reason was an after-the-fact one (i.e., after the decision to permanently ban). 

Really, I was quite pissed off when I saw three cops enter the room with Loomis!  I hadn't even spoken to anyone in the library for a week.  And yes I was quite pissed off when one of them actually grabbed my arm, twisted it behind my back, and frisked me because I’d said, “I do not have any weapons.”   I’m 66 and not a big guy.  And I was not making threats in any way whatsoever.  Ah, but it turned out that cop was the training officer and showing a new recruit how to frisk a citizen.  I have no record of violence whatsoever.  In essence, Loomis played the he-makes-me-feel-uncomfortable card.  Since that nefarious day over two years ago, if indeed I were such a danger to the staff and public, why have I done nothing at all to harm the staff and public since then?  So, here I am today with an almost-arrested police record for the crime of manifesting a little anger in public… and PERMANENTLY punished for it.  Bravo America, or rather Barnstable! 

Doggedly since that nefarious day in June, I’ve contacted scores of organizations and town officials.  To date, not one of them proved sufficiently concerned to offer to help or even write a simple letter to the director, requesting she rescind the authoritarian decree or at least provide due process.  Not even the ACLUM or State Attorney General Martha Coakley would lift a finger!  To date, not one of the official sponsors of Banned Books Week has been willing to do that either!  So, why the hell not American Library Association, PEN America, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Council of Teachers of English, American Book Sellers Association, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Association of American Publishers, Freedom to Read Foundation, National Association of College Stores, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Project Censored, and Center for the Book at the Library of Congress?   And why did not one town counselor or commissioner of the Barnstable County Human Rights Commission give a damn either? 

Essentially, a responsible citizen does not keep his or her mouth shut in the face of injustice, which is why I stand protesting here tonight next to library property.  Those attending Speyer’s lecture, who had the curiosity to take a copy of this flyer, should ask themselves after the lecture why they too likely do not give a damn.  BTW, featured in the above aquarelle are local hack hypocrites Brian Mannal, Ann Canedy, and Cleon Turner, as puppets of propriety.  Indeed, for them and so many others, some vague notion of propriety is far more important than freedom of speech and expression. 

..................................

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: aspeyer@clamsnet.org
CC: sturgislibrary@comcast.net; nsymington@clamsnet.org; ppronovost@capecodonline.com; nhoffenberg@barnstablepatriot.com
Subject: Hypocrites celebrate Banned Books Week... what else is new, eh?
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:55:55 -0400

To Director Anne Speyer, South Dennis Free Public Library:
How do people like you and Lucy Loomis get to be such flaming hypocrites?  I’m truly curious!  How can you possibly deliver a lecture on Banned Books at Sturgis Library during Banned Books Week without mentioning that Sturgis Library bans books… and patrons like me?  Loomis not only permanently banned me in June 2012 without warning or due process for having had the audacity to criticize her hypocrisy regarding Clams library policy; in particular, “libraries should provide materials and information presenting ALLpoints of view.”  My point of view and that of those published in The American Dissident have been permanently banned.   The American Dissident and any books I’ve authored, including Transcendental Trinkets, Leaves of Democracy, and Triumvirate of the Monkeys have been permeanently banned at Sturgis Library.  And you will stand in that library in a week as a grotesque hypocrite and NOT mention that fact.  Bravo!  Perhaps you’ll be the next Mary Otis Warren award recipient.  Yes, you’d be perfect, though Loomis would be better.  Of course, you’ll remain silent in the spirit of Banned Books Week.  Bravo! 
Sincerely,

G. Tod Slone, PhD (universite de Nantes, FR) aka P. Maudit,

Founding Editor (1998)

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 13:47:06 -0400

Subject: Re: Hypocrites celebrate Banned Books Week... what else is new, eh?

From: aspeyer@clamsnet.org

To: todslone@hotmail.com

Mr.Slone,

Never having met you, I have no idea why you're using my first name, but know this. The night of my talk, one I had prepared a year ago on the history of book banning around the world, I was with my much loved 89 year old husband who was facing major surgery we knew could kill him.

I was fulfilling a commitment I had made to give the talk long before the medical stuff descended, but neither that, nor someone handing out  leaflets nor much of anything else was my priority. As it happens, I read your leaflet  the night of the talk-- one of the attendees brought one in.  

You have a right to express yourself in your blog. You had a right to hand out leaflets at the end of the Sturgis Library drive. But I have the right not to engage in further discussion with you or be harassed.  I had deleted automatically the first e-mail you sent because I had never heard of you, and I never open e-mail from unknown senders. I have since heard of you so I am responding this once. 

Anne Speyer

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: aspeyer@clamsnet.org
Subject: RE: Hypocrites celebrate Banned Books Week... what else is new, eh?
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 15:05:42 -0400

To Anne Speyer,

Well, that was a great non-response.  Yes, and you have a right to be utterly apathetic to the banning of patrons, books, and periodicals in your neighborhood while giving talks about banning and censorship at a library that bans and censors.   Whatever makes a person like you and Loomis tick?  I shall NEVER know.  Yes,  you and Loomis have a right to behave as autocrat punishers of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and scorners of DUE PROCESS, while collecting taxpayer funding… on Cape Cod.  That is your shame.  And if you never open emails from unknown senders then you should NOT be a public librarian.  

G. Tod

To Anne Speyer,

Well, that was a great non-response.  Yes, and you have a right to be utterly apathetic to the banning of patrons, books, and periodicals in your neighborhood while giving talks about banning and censorship at a library that bans and censors.   Whatever makes a person like you and Loomis tick?  I shall NEVER know.  Yes,  you and Loomis have a right to behave as autocrat punishers of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and scorners of DUE PROCESS, while collecting taxpayer funding… on Cape Cod.  That is your shame.  And if you never open emails from unknown senders then you should NOT be a public librarian.  Christ!

G. Tod

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: aspeyer@clamsnet.org
CC: ppronovost@capecodonline.com; sturgislibrary@comcast.net; editor@barnstablepatriot.com; editor.camelsaloon@gmail.com
Subject: Anne Speyer lampooned in a new P. Maudit cartoon
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:16:14 -0400

To Director Anne Speyer, South Dennis Library,
You've been lampooned in a new P. Maudit cartoon (see http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2014/10/ann-speyer.html).  Thanks to the Internet, my voice WILL be heard.  One day, of course, those like you, Loomis, Pronovost, and Hoffenberg will control the Internet and keep voices like mine out of the arena of debate.  When that day comes, democracy will be no more...
Sincerely,
 

G. Tod Slone

Editorial for Issue #25 of The American Dissident

Democracy?  We No Have No Democracy!

Twenty-five issues of The American Dissident have been published over the past 15 years!  So, where the hell are the trumpets, laurels, and flamin’ kudos?  Not a damn sound to be heard.  Well, obviously that’s not why I’m publishing The AD.  I enjoy putting together each issue and of course get to include a lot of my own stuff.  And often there’s too damn much of that in a given issue… and that’s because poets, writers, and artists generally just ain’t interested in sending their stuff to a mag like The AD.  As for cost, well, I have to foot about half the bill for each issue.  Subscribers, to whom I’m ever grateful, pay for the other half.  Libraries have been next to impossible to attract. When Dan Sklar was inviting me and ordering 20 copies for his students that put me over the breakeven point.  So Sklar was a boon while it lasted, and I was quite thankful.  And of course I enjoyed speaking to his students.  Each issue costs about $450.  Anyhow, let the trombones blow and the jelly rolls fly!  The grim reaper is looking at me… and I’m looking at him… especially when I’m NOT slugging down the merlot… picrate… gros rouge. 

What viscerally outrages me is everyone being so easily offended. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee citizens from being OFFENDED.  And it’s amazing how many citizens don’t give a damn about issues of freedom of speech.  “Note the general reaction to the vast majority of Wikileaks cables, which are of the lowest classification,” wrote Diana West.  “There was and is a widespread sense that We, the People, shouldn't be allowed to see this evidence of instances of lying, ineptitude and concession by our public servants. A free people, I submit, would instead feel outrage.”  Well, I feel outrage! 

            Many, perhaps even most in today’s Nanny Nation, would like to replace the First Amendment with hate-speech and anti-blasphemy legislation and thus follow the dubious example of Europe and Canada, where a citizen can actually be tried and found guilty for speaking or writing a fact, as in  the Qur’an calls for the death of all apostates.   The offended group simply has to complain to authorities. 

              Another thing that viscerally outrages me is the fine art of demonizing ones opponents, which can be especially effective in keeping ones partisans uninformed as to the corruption in the party.  I’m a liberal; anything a conservative says is horseshit!  Or I’m a conservative; anything a liberal says is bullshit.  Just listen, read, or watch us and we’ll tell you what to believe and what not to believe.  And if you want to know what happened regarding Benghazi and that infamous video, since the machine is now a liberal one, the liberal media will explain that nothing at all really happened.  It was just politicized.  What a crock!  Do they think we’re all stupid?  Perhaps…

Whenever I bump into an Obama or Hillary worshipper, I’m left dumbfounded.  I sensed Obama was a charismatic liar from day one.  Bush, well, he was a liar too, but not so charismatic.  Why are so many Americans unable to sense the obvious?  How can they be so easily taken in by fake smiles, crocodile tears, and charisma?  How can democracy possibly survive when the citizenry is so easily duped?  Likely, it cannot and will not. 

On another note, it is not always easy to tap into baggage once one obtains it.  Most seek to get rid of it.  But I choose to create from it.  The front cover of this issue resulted from one of my recent pieces of baggage, that is, Sturgis Library’s permanent trespass order against me for mere written criticism, and my inability to obtain any justice at all.  The front cover depicts real community pillars indifferent to that authoritarian denial of freedom of speech and expression.  For the record, the two seated pillars are Karen Wulf (PEN New England) and Carol Rose (ACLU of Massachusetts), both of whom would not respond.  Standing and clapping outside the ribbon on the right is Cape Cod Times Editor Paul Pronovost, who refused to print the story.  Inside the yellow ribbon from left to right are Betsy Newell (lawyer and library trustee), Ellie Claus (realtor and former president of the library trustees), Anita Walker (Massachusetts Cultural Council), Lucy Loomis (library director), Daniel Santos (trustee), Ted Lowrie (president of the library trustees), Thomas K. Lynch (town manager), and State Senator Daniel A. Wolf.  Many others of course could have been added.   Perhaps it would be difficult to find a community pillar who wasn’t apathetic.  After all, free speech exists so that citizens can question and challenge the pillars.

Vive Pussy Riot (Russian) and Femen (Ukrainien)!  How I admire those feisty women fighting for freedom of speech.  They are the direct opposites of community pillars.  German Chancellor Merkel is fighting for the freedom of the Pussy Riot members serving sentences in a gulag.  But why aren’t our female leaders fighting for them too?  What the hell is the most admired woman in America, Hillary Clinton, doing?  Lying and denying and spinning, beggaring up the ladder of power!  What else?  And what about Michelle Obama with her $10,000 inaugural dress.  Well, what else is new, right? 

Lucy Loomis

Thanks to Russell Streur, Camel Saloon Barkeep, the Supervisor of Records for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts forced Sturgis Library to hand over all documents with my regard last week.  After reading the documents, I noted the absence of the reason for Director Lucy Loomis' decision to permanently trespass me from Sturgis Library without warning or possibility of due process.  The reason, of course, was the written criticism I'd disseminated one week before regarding library policy on censorship and openness to all points of view and Loomis' egregious hypocrisy regarding that policy.  On the same note, Global Free Press just published an article I wrote regarding the local press' refusal to publish anything about that permanent trespass decree: http://www.globalfreepress.org/editorials/topics/free-press/3427-dereliction-of-duty-journalists-without-journalistic-principles.

The recently acquired documents inspired the following poem.

 

Beware of Marm

With pleasure I will torpedo the ark.

—Henrik Ibsen, “An Enemy of the People”

The ploy was not ingenious, but rather sadly typical of the day,

convenient and diversionary—no counter argument necessary,
just demonize the messenger and ignore what he had to say.

And so on the basis of a single event of cops called and

suddenly confronting me in the public library that day in June,

when I was working in a room alone and quietly,

the Marm in Chief,* who’d invited them, would later write

to the trustees who’d hired her:

Because of his behavior when the police were here they almost

                                                                                                  arrested him.

So now I had an almost-arrested police record, and almost appeared

in the almost-arrested blotter of the local newspaper. 

He can go from calm to extremely agitated in a matter of seconds,

she’d written clinically, though without PhD.

Yet who in their right mind not on meds would not have raised

his voice viscerally

at such a grotesque affront to freedom of speech and expression?

So this is the correct decision for the safety of the staff and public,”

she decided as judge, jury, and henchbitch. 

And out I walked that miserable day in June, three cops by my side,

imminent danger to staff and public safety, though no gun

and bullets in hand, no jihadist bomb belt round the gut,

not even hatred in my eyes, just a pen, paper, and laptop computer.

If he does come into the library, the police have advised us not to

interact with him but simply call them and they will come and arrest him,

she noted, proud of her successful orchestration.

But to the Marm in Chief’s likely dismay, I’ve yet to set foot in her library

since that notorious decree to permanently trespass me,

and so no life sentence in some harsh penitentiary up till now for me! 

…………………………………………………………….

*The Marm in Chief is Director Lucy Loomis, Sturgis Library, Barnstable, MA.  Thanks to Citizen Russell Streur’s perseverance and the resultant positive decision made by the Secretary of Records for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, nine months after that dismal day in June, I was able to view the document containing the Marm in Chief’s above statement. 

Paul Pronovost

Scroll down for a larger version and description of those depicted.

 

 

 

Well, it is, I suppose, good to observe that those contacted (see below) are not completely brain dead or rather impervious to anything emanating from outside their safe-zone professional cocoons.  The number of "hits" regarding this post indicate a certain reluctant curiosity. 

From the Editorial for Issue #25 of The American Dissident:
"On another note, it is not always easy to tap into baggage once one obtains it.  Most seek to get rid of it.  But I choose to create from it.  The front cover of this issue resulted from one of my recent pieces of baggage, that is, Sturgis Library’s permanent trespass order against me for mere written criticism, and my inability to obtain any justice at all.  The front cover depicts real community pillars indifferent to that authoritarian denial of freedom of speech and expression.  For the record, the two seated pillars are Karen Wulf (PEN New England) and Carol Rose (ACLU of Massachusetts), both of whom would simply not respond.  Standing and clapping outside the ribbon on the right is Cape Cod Times Editor Paul Pronovost, who also refused to respond and would not print the story.  Inside the yellow ribbon from left to right are Betsy Newell (lawyer and library trustee), Ellie Claus (realtor and former president of the library trustees), Anita Walker (Massachusetts Cultural Council), Lucy Loomis (library director), Daniel Santos (trustee), Ted Lowrie (president of the library trustees), Thomas K. Lynch (town manager), and State Senator Daniel A. Wolf.  Many others of course could have been added.   Perhaps it would be difficult to find a community pillar who wasn’t apathetic.  After all, free speech exists so that citizens can question and challenge the pillars."

...................................................................
Email sent March 6, 2013

To Anita Walker, Betsy Newell, Carol Rose, Dan Santos, Ellie Claus, Karen Wulf, Lucy Loomis, Paul Pronovost, Senator Daniel A. Wolf, Ted Lowry, and Thomas K. Lynch:

You are depicted naked on the front cover of the latest issue of The American Dissident (only $9 per copy if you’d like one!). The cover image is posted here: http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2013/03/paul-pronovost.html.

Please feel free to comment on the blogsite! The American Dissident NEVER censors comments. And vigorous debate and freedom of speech are, after all, the very cornerstones of a thriving democracy. Ah, but is it really thriving here in Barnstable, Massachusetts? Methinks NOT!!!

Thanks to the Internet, this will be part of the public record, you know, the one you'd all like to limit.

Lucy Loomis

Democracy in INaction
The following is a fairly simple and most reasonable proposal, yet not one library director (Lucy Loomis et al) or library trustee (Dan Santos, Ted Lowry et al), nor Town Manager Thomas K. Lynch, Town Attorney Ruth Weil, or local newspaper (Cape Cod Times editor Paul Pronovost et al) deigned to respond.  My next step will be to drive into town to determine if a citizen without political/commercial clout can in fact present a proposal. 
...............................................................

Proposal to Mandate Democratic Procedure and Public Accountability

For Any Library Seeking Public Funding in the Town of Barnstable

 

Background
My tax dollars help support institutions that reject both democratic procedure and public accountability.  This is simply not acceptable.  Sturgis Library, which permanently banned me last June without warning or due process, serves as an egregious example.  The President of the Library Trustees, Ted Lowry, refused to even respond to my request for due process.  My “offense” comprised simple written criticism of the library’s own written policy, especially regarding censorship and openness to all points of view.  When I asked director Lucy Loomis why she made the decision to ban me, she said:  “You’ve been critical of me, you don’t like it here, so now you can’t come here anymore.”  Several days later, the police officer, who’d taken Loomis’ phone call, informed that Loomis had said, I’d made her “feel uncomfortable” and “said inappropriate things.”  The officer noted Loomis did not provide any further information or details.  Nothing is written about any of this in the police report, not even the precise duration of the trespass order.   Sturgis has refused to provide any written documentation regarding the trespass order. 

The Proposal

1. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall not punish patrons, who simply and peacefully criticize a library—staff, policies, events, etc.   Such libraries should encourage criticism, not crush it.   

2.  Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall not be permitted to dismiss peaceful criticism as “harassment,” a term clearly and legally defined.  Instead, they should follow that legal definition. 

3. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable must provide a written warning to a patron, prior to punishment, noting the precise “offense” and precise punishment if said “offense” continues.   In fact, a list of punishable “offenses” should be posted on the bulletin boards of each publicly-funded library.    

4. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable must not only offer, but also clearly define, procedure for due process in a written document, so that punished library patrons have the opportunity to question and challenge the “offense” and penalty before an independent committee. 

5. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall hire library directors with the expectation they possess sufficient spine to be able to deal with criticism in a fully democratic manner, as opposed to in an authoritarian one.  

6.  Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall make their records available to the public.

7. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable that choose to ignore the above points will be excluded from further public funding, though given the opportunity to rectify errors in the framework of due-process procedure.

Update
Citizen Russell Streur noted regarding Sturgis’ trespass order:  “I am outraged.  And I want to know how this can happen in the United States of America.  I filed the enclosed Public Access Records request to find out, citing 950 CMR 32.  I received the enclosed denial, claiming the library was not subject to the Regulation as it was not a Government Entity.” 

Streur then appealed the denial, to the Supervisor of Public Records, Office of the State Secretary, “on the grounds of 950 CMR 32.03, which defines a Governmental Entity as ‘any authority established by the General Court to serve a public purpose.’” 

Streur notes “The argument that the Sturgis Library is not subject to the Regulation is specious.  It is obvious that a town library serves a public purpose.  The authority of the Town of Barnstable devolves upon an entity to which it contacts to serve a public purpose.  The library cannot claim the rights of the public purpose and at the same time hide behind the skirts of its organizational structure to evade the responsibilities of the public purpose it undertakes.” 

Streur also notes:   “My purpose in filing this request is to discover the truth of this thing, how an individual can be permanently banned from a public library for no reason, with no hearing, and with no recourse; and how the individuals who have protested this action also end up without a voice in the matter.” 
Shawn A. Williams, Supervisor of Public Records, replied on January 4, 2013, “I have directed a member of my staff, Attorney Donald White, to review the matter.” 

Loomis’ arbitrary decision and the silence of her colleagues have served to reduce democracy in the publicly-funded libraries of the Town of Barnstable.  Why should taxpayer money be used to fund institutions that seem scornful of democracy and individual liberties?   Quite simply, it should not be used to do so!   

Betsy Newell

Celebrate Banning Books and Patrons Week

 

The Banned Books Week Farce

Why Banned Books Week Ought NOT to Be Celebrated

If one were to take the celebration of Banned Books Week literally, then it would perhaps make sense.  In other words, the librarians, publishers et al would be celebrating the books, periodicals, and patrons they’ve successfully banned or shunned over the years.  The rampant hypocrisy in the very heart of the American Library Association, which seems to be the chief sponsor of the event,  as well as that of the multitude of library directors spread across the nation like the proverbial layer of stale peanut butter, clearly needs to be exposed.  The celebration seems to have become nothing more than a self-congratulatory act of backslapping.  If there were an iota of integrity in it, a place, no matter how small, would be devoted to criticism of it and of the many librarians, as well as approving poets and writers, who do in fact ban books, periodicals, and even patrons. 

Politically-correct journalist Bill Moyers and wife were named Honorary Co-Chairs of this year’s celebration, which immediately politicizes the celebration.  One must wonder how many books and periodicals published by right-wingers critical of Islam, Obama, and/or PC have been shunned by the likes of Moyers and wife.  And why appoint such a buffered and wealthy couple to be honorary co-chairs?  Why not appoint instead someone who has indeed tested librarians over the years to determine just how open, or rather closed, they really are to new books and periodicals, not to mention criticism of them? 

With that regard, Charles Willett, founding editor of Counterpoise and retired librarian, comes to mind.  At the Fifth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, he stated:  “In almost all the 45 libraries studied here, and probably hundreds and hundreds more across the country, we have failed our professional duty to seek out diverse political views. [...] These books are not expensive. Their absence from our libraries makes a mockery of ALA’s vaunted ‘freedom to read.’ But we do not even notice that we are censoring our collections. Complacently, we watch our new automated systems stuff the shelves with Henry Kissinger’s memoirs.” 

               So, why celebrate such a despicably deplorable record?  Why not instead satirize the intellectually corrupt bibliotards, philes, and snubs, as I've done regarding the ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom
(see http://www.theamericandissident.org/orgs/american_library_association.html )?  The OIF, by the way, remains utterly indifferent to my complaint of being permanently trespassed without warning or due process by Sturgis Library, which celebrates Banned Books Week, though not this year, according to its fascistic director Lucy Loomis?  The only response from the ALA to my complaint was from Valerie Hawkins, though not of the Office of Intellectual Freedom: 

At any rate, the policies of any local public library are set by its board of trustees. Any and all complaints as to your treatment by its employees should be taken up with the library’s trustees, as they would be the ones who would decide if there was library staff misconduct and then could take steps accordingly.

We’re in Chicago. We have no jurisdiction whatsoever over your local public library and your problems with them.

You’ll need to work this out on your own, with your own local resources and legal authorities.

Now, does Hawkins seem at all interested or concerned?  And what happens, as in my case, when the board of trustees refuses to even respond  and when one of the trustees, boyfriend of the director, Dan Santos, dismisses my criticism as “intellectual masturbation” without even examining it, if in fact he's even capable of doing so?  And how might one explain the total refusal of PEN New England (“defending freedom of expression”)  to respond to my complaints of having my freedom of expression truncated here and there in New England at several libraries, including Watertown Free Public Library, which trespassed me for three months for simply trying to get the ref librarian Ardis Francoeur to understand why she should at least consider subscribing to The American Dissident?  Calling director Karen Wulf, calling director Karen Wulf!  Sorry, nobody home.  PEN is of course a Banned Books Week sponsor.  And how might one explain Suffolk University Poetry Center’s refusal to consider subscribing to The American Dissident, a journal of literature, democracy, and dissidence?  In fact, it too would not respond, that is until the student editor I’d contacted confronted Fred Marchant, its director and former PEN New England director.  And why does the National Coalition Against Censorship refuse to respond regarding my complaint against PEN’s blatant hypocrisy?  Well, it too is listed as a main sponsor.  How does one explain the refusal of famous City Lights Bookstore to carry The American Dissident?  Perhaps because it’s been critical of Beatniks?  City Lights is of course a big promoter of Banned Books Week. 

                Could I possibly be the only one in America who’s been banned from a publicly-funded library for written criticism?  Could the periodical I publish be the only one that’s ever been banned from an entire library system like the Clams Library System of Cape Cod?  Could the flyers I attempted to distribute be the only ones ever banned from a publicly-funded library?  Now that’s highly unlikely.  But dissidents like me, who actually question and challenge celebrity dissidents like Moyers, tend to be fully ostracized by the established-order system, be it the biblio or cultural sectors. 

Finally, the ALA stipulates that “Banned Books Week brings together the entire book community—librarians, booksellers, publishers, journalists, teachers, and readers of all types—in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas, even those some consider unorthodox or unpopular.”  But does it really?  Readers of all types?  Certainly not my type!  And doesn’t the commercialization of such a serious subject as censorship serve to demean it, though fill the pockets of dubious types like Moyers and ALA executives?   “Help support Banned Books Week by purchasing t-shirts, buttons, and more.  Shop!”  Christ.

Lucy Loomis

Cape Cod Artists in the Box of Conformity

Open Letter to Lucy Loomis
The new cartoon you inspired is now posted on The American Dissident blogsite.  You also inspired the following thoughts.

…………………………………..

Satire is all I have.  I cannot beat free-speech scorning Americans in power.  But at least I can piss them off a bit with my rude-truth criticism.

For an interesting experience, one should try bucking conformity for a moment—stepping out of line and observing the inevitable resultant frowns upon the faces of conformists, sometimes even hatred in their eyes.  But doing that takes a certain degree of courage, which most conformists do not possess.

Vague statements issued by those in power  are perhaps purposeful, for there is no way I can disprove, for example, that I made the library director “feel uncomfortable” or said “inappropriate things.”  Evidently, such statements serve to divert attention away from the initial argument and are, in essence, immaterial to it.  In a court of law, such statements hold no weight.  Facts hold weight, not nebulous feelings. 

Waving flags during the Fourth of July is an act of conformity and blind patriotism.  Most who engage in that kind of behavior would likely not stand up to support First Amendment rights of a citizen not part of their network of family and friends. 

………………………………………

What you did with my regard remains almost inexplicable.  In fact, the only explanation that I’ve been able to come up with is that you’ve been wallowing in positive feedback all your life.  Thus, when I suddenly appeared, pointed out that you clearly violated your own collection development policy, you did not quite know how to react.  If you had been brought up in an ambiance of vigorous debate and encouraged criticism, you would have been able to react with some sort of cogent counter-argument or at least admit that I was right and correct the error.  Instead, you punished me for stating a simple TRUTH. 

Your inability to react intelligently resulted in your issuing an autocratic decree—a permanent trespass order without due process.   Benito Mussolini, of course, would have been proud of you.   I certainly harbor no hatred with your regard.  That’s not who I am.  I don’t carry grudges, though suspect you likely do.  You don’t really make me “feel uncomfortable,” though you did say “inappropriate things.”  Perhaps Dan Santos makes me “feel uncomfortable.”  Is he violent?  His comments seemed to indicate that he too is quite incapable of dealing with cogent arguments, that is, with reason.  And when that occurs, the autocratic kneejerk or violence tends to kick in.   

Imagine getting so upset by the word "fucking" and not being able to understand the point of my placard, though it couldn’t be any simpler:  CELEBRATE THE FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT, NOT COMMERCE!  Imagine that one guy called me CHARLES MANSON.  Indeed, for him, the written word FUCKING was as bad as real MASS MURDERING.  For Santos, you, that guy, and so many others, the educational system has been a serious failure.   For you and so many others, the written word FUCKING is much more serious than  a fellow citizen getting permanently trespassed without DUE PROCESS. 

You and I are so different. It is sad that instead of expelling me you did not at least make an attempt to understand me. 

PS:  Your photography needs to rise above the banal—the innocuous and hackneyed so common here on the Cape.  You RISK nothing at all in your art.  Yet an artist should dare RISK and step out on the edge from time to time.  Do so!  It could only help improve what you do.  Blackberries are fine, but you need to do something much, much better.   And you can only do that if you summon courage to step out of the comfortable box you’ve been sitting in for decades.  Art or power?  That’s the question you need to ask yourself.  Art or smiley-face conformity.  Should artists be conformists?  Not at all!  Yet here on the Cape that’s precisely what they seem to be.  And your cultural council evidently encourages it.  Money always encourages conformity.