A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

[For the journal--guidelines, focus, etc.--go to www.theamericandissident.org. If you have questions, please contact me at todslone@hotmail.com. Comments are NOT moderated (i.e., CENSORED)!]
Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia, not to mention Sweden, England, and Austria.

More P. Maudit cartoons (and essays) at Global Free Press: http://www.globalfreepress.org

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Eleanor Claus

Women in Power
Playing the He-Makes-Me-Feel-Uncomfortable Card
The idea that there is a conflict between free speech and the academic community fundamentally misunderstands both the goals of higher education and the nature and role of free speech.
—George Orwell
Orwell, of course, made some wonderful observations.  The one above is perhaps one of his best and clearly could equally apply to libraries and library directors. 
It is my observation, from several decades of knockng on the doors of public libraries, that public library directors are almost always female, behave as gatekeepers prohibiting certain viewpoints, especially when critical of public librarian behavior, as well as that of the local pillars of the community.  They generally do not celebrate the First Amendment, though do perform little charades during Banned Books Week.  Not all librarians, of course, but certainly the very large majority of them!  And the staff at the American Library Association are as bad as the worst. 
The above cartoon was drawn a year and a half ago regarding Lucy Loomis’ order that I cease leaving flyers at Sturgis Library and not talk to speak to staff about that.  Realizing Loomis could probably no-trespass me from the library if I did not obey the command, I decided to obey it.  I needed and still need the library for the internet.  My job demands it.  So, now I must travel further for it.  Loomis has punished me—the school marm punishing the little refractory school boy.  The marm's mentality is:  If you criticize me, I'll punish you!  Marms seem to be crying "bully," as in wolf, right and left today, then behaving as bullies themselves whenever their power might be threatened.  Loomis' power was threatened because I underscored her flawed sense of reasoning and resultant hypocrisy.  Therefore, she bullied me with the help of three cops. 

And many would consider a loner like me as a little refractory school boy because of my passion for the First Amendment and my taking a stand now and then, as I did with Loomis and her little fascist fiefdom known as Sturgis Library.  And indeed, grownups don’t protest, they conform.   Interestingly, one of the library trustees, Santos, termed my protest as “intellectual masturbation.”  With that regard, Tim Bearly noted with unusual perspicacity: 
I suppose to him, questioning and challenging in public, is essentially the same as masturbating in public… you shouldn't do it. Do your wanking at home by yourself, do your thinking at home by yourself. These acts are considered equally disgusting to him.

Since the permanent no-trespass order issued verbally on June 19th with my regard in front of no less than three police officers in the library (see previous blog post), I contacted the following with little results: 

-Barnstable Town Manager Thomas K. Lynch = NO RESPONSE
-Eleanor Claus (friend of Loomis), President of the Town Library Committee = NO RESPONSE
                                -American Library Association = NO RESPONSE
-Cape Cod Times = NO RESPONSE
-First Amendment expert, Harvey Silverglate = referred me to the ACLUM
-Police Station = paid 50 cents for the police report, which only stated:  “harassment, male” (see below)
Since the police incident, I have been obsessing over what occurred.  Loomis has made me feel sincerely depressed, uh, “uncomfortable.” I sketched another cartoon with her fascistic regard, which will be in the current issue of The American Dissident due to be distributed in a month.  If citizens do not take a stand vis-à-vis the bugeoning mob of little caesars in their midst, Freedom of Speech and Due Process will cease to exist in America. 

Perhaps I shall try to create a local First Amendment Club.  Hell, there’s a much publicized Hydrangea Club in the area, not to mention the Writer’s Conference, which is really the same thing (First Amendment apathetic).  I am somewhat desperate to learn if anybody else in the area shares my passion. 

Friday, June 22, 2012

Welcome to Lucy's Little Fascist Fiefdom

Peaceful Freedom of Expression Punished

By a Permanent No-Trespass Order at Sturgis Library! 

Open Letter to the Staff at Sturgis Library (Part III)

An integral part of fascism is the expectation that one does not criticize the leader without severe consequences.
—P. Maudit
Unbeknownst to the library brass, this validates everything you have posted about them. They inadvertently proved your point by banning you from the library!  As you said, how hypocritical for them to celebrate banned books week...then they ban you!  Perhaps they became so enraged with the irrefutable logic [in the two open letters], they resorted to the only tactic they had at their disposal. 
—Timothy Bearly
A number of you have been quite helpful and friendly with my regard.  I thank you for that and certainly hold no hostility towards any of you.  I send this because you should be informed and because you are adults.
What I do, in my own way and in my own capacity, is fight for the First Amendment and democracy.  The other day I was verbally issued a permanent no-trespass order regarding Sturgis Library without warning and without any due process whatsoever by your director, Lucy Loomis.  Yet I had not been a “public nuisance,” was not making noise or insulting and threatening staff or patrons.  But I did express several critical opinions in two Open Letters to the library directors in the Clams system in a last ditch effort to try to get just one of them to subscribe to The American Dissident, a 501 c3 nonprofit journal devoted to literature, democracy, and dissidence, published in Barnstable. 

No threats were made!  However, criticism regarding the egregious hypocrisy of Sturgis’ collection development policy was included.   Can it really be true that in a democracy one can be barred from a public space receiving taxpayer funding for simply expressing ones opinions… in writing?  In Loomis’ public space, the answer is yes. 
My  principle criticism, by the way, was with regards the following:
A. The library’s own policy stipulates “Libraries should challenge censorship […].”
B. Sturgis banned my flyers last year.
A. The library’s own policy stipulates “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view”.
B. Sturgis banned The American Dissident “point of view” and now even banned me for expressing a point of view in writing. 
Can any of you perceive the hypocrisy?  Hopefully, one or several of you can.  After all, it cannot be more evident.    You can read those two letters, as well as the replies of the only two people who responded,  library trustee Dan Santos and library director Ginny Hewlett, on The American Dissident blogsite:  wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com.  You will note their responses did not even address the above points.  Santos’ response was a simple ‘how dare you criticize us!’   Hewlett’s respsonse was a warning to her colleagues to be careful if they responded because it would become part of the public record.  Could any of the librarians understand the points made?   If they did, why didn’t they respond?  Or were they perhaps not proponents of freedom of expression, as I suspect, and, for some reason, were compelled to maintain a false front in order to obtain public funding? 
Why are the librarians of Cape Cod so against supporting a local press like mine, devoted to democracy and dissidence?  Why instead do they all seem to favor purchasing DVDs, rife with gratuitous violence and drug abuse?  “We’re family-friendly” had said Loomis.  Yeah, tell me about it!  And since when did democracy and freedom of expression become family unfriendly?  And since when did punishing a senior citizen resident of Barnstable like me for simply expressing his opinions in writing become family friendly? 
Can Sturgis Library really be so scornful of democracy and its cornerstones, freedom of speech and vigorous debate?  No less than three cops stood with Loomis, as if I were some sort of most-wanted criminal.  Is Loomis trying to frighten me into silence?  If so, she’s doing a pretty good job.  After all, there’s nothing more frightening than some of those cops.  So, there I was quietly working on the Internet, per usual.   One of the cops even grabbed, twisted, and held my arm while he frisked me because I’d simply asked why three cops were necessary and said I didn’t carry a weapon.  Nice way to treat a local senior citizen, Officer Foley!  Are cops permitted to search a person, not suspected of anything, without a warrant on Cape Cod?  I was not resisting arrest.   I was not put under arrest. 

Why did Loomis refuse at my request to hand me a written document stipulating the no-trespass order and reason for it?  Is there simply no accountability where she is concerned?   How is that possible in this day and age? 
As a taxpaying citizen living in Barnstable, I am fully outraged.  And it appears that there is nothing at all I can do.  There is no where to even lodge a complaint.  One of the cops told me to go to Town Hall.  Well, I did that.  But Town Hall told me it has no jurisdiction over the libraries and that I should go to the police station or contact trustee Elie Claus.   If I had known that the local library in Barnstable was so anti-democracy, I would not have moved here.   Now, I am not even permitted to use the public library in my own neighborhood… forever... and, worse still, am forced to pay taxes to support it.  For me, what Loomis did is still quite unbelievable, though evidently I should have known better for last year she had actually banned my flyers at Sturgis and even banned my mentioning that to any of you.  Well, I did obey her commands, that is, until this email.    

How can you possibly support a person who does not respect  freedom of speech (i.e., the right to criticize publicly- funded organizations with impunity)?  Sure, maybe she’s been nice to you.  But that is immaterial to the question.  What is wrong with a person who feels compelled to punish anybody who criticizes her?   Shouldn’t a director have more spine than that?  Indeed, how did a person with such a fragile ego and little-caesar complex become director in the first place?   

Finally, most Americans are undeserving of the freedoms accorded to them because most will not dare stand up, alone if need be, to openly support freedom of speech and vigorous debate whenever suppressed.  The spirit of democracy demands that the speech you hate the most should be the speech that you will fight to permit and protect.  Too many citizens remain ignorant of that prime tenet.  Too many citizens easily rationalize inaction and willfully adorn the muzzle.  For people living under blood-thirsty dictatorships, that’s understandable.  But in America, people shouldn’t be wearing muzzles.  Dogs should be wearing them… 

Thank you for your attention… and good luck working in Lucy’s Little Fascist Fiefdom! 

Friday, June 15, 2012

Clams Library Network of Cape Cod

Open Letter to the Librarians of Cape Cod, Part II

Liberals and conservatives seem to share one thing in common today:  a clear DISDAIN for democracy’s cornerstones:  FREEDOM OF SPEECH and VIGOROUS DEBATE.   Dare criticize us and we shall scorn, ostracize, and dismiss you with invective has become the modus operandi of the day, left and right. 

[Only one librarian and a trustee responded to my previous Open Letter.  Their responses are incorporated into this, Open Letter Part II, and are also included at the end of this missive.  Not one person responded to Part II, which in essence illustrates how I feed on criticism, as opposed to FEAR and HATE it like so many others do.  Indeed, criticism becomes grist for my creative writer's mill.]

Why does criticism initiate such a knee-jerk hate reaction, when instead it ought to intiate thought?  After all, without criticism, you might as well assume you’re doing a perfect job, so why bother trying to improve?  Is it not aberrant that a public library like Sturgis would actually ban criticism on its premises?  Evidently, you do not thinks so.  Why not also ban criticism of politicians? 
Sadly, your wall of purported perfection seems quite impervious to reason.  Librarian Ginny Hewitt’s email, I suppose, was a welcome warning for you to make certain your muzzles are firmly attached.   Refrain from discussing democracy openly because it will become part of the public record!  And, well, that was all she had to say (or imply)—not even a thought on that most revealing quote written by a retired librarian and prefacing the previous open letter.  Not even his wisdom and keen observations could penetrate your  groupthink wall of “deaf ears.”   
As for Dan Santos, who is not even a librarian, at least he did respond, though indirectly and in a rather unoriginal  manner:  shooting the messenger to avoid dealing with the message.  Here’s a BLUF [Bottom Line Up Front, short and sweet] version of the message.  Will it get through this time? 
A.      The library’s own policy stipulates “Libraries should challenge censorship […].”
B.       Sturgis banned (censored!) my flyers.
A.       The library’s own policy stipulates ““Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view”.
B.       Sturgis banned The American Dissident “point of view”.
Now, if any of you can muster the courage, Dan Santos included, I’d be more than happy to meet and talk with you calmly and rationally about that “RANT” and its significance.  After all, a discussion on the importance of DEMOCRACY and how fragile it’s becoming in AMERICA (and evidently on CAPE COD), thanks to liberal political correctness and conservative established-order self-preservation, could be quite interesting. 
However, to dismiss interest and support for democracy’s cornerstones, as you have done either by silence or outright disdain, leads me to believe that such an encounter would not be in the least bit interesting to any of you.  “No wonder his message is falling on deaf ears,” states Santos.  Well, because your ears may be deaf does not necessarily mean that everyone else’s ears are also deaf. 

As for Santos’ comment and evident confusion regarding my July 4th protest, an explanation is clearly in order.   First, it is not an easy thing to stand alone, as I did, knowing the possible hostility that would result.  I didn’t want to go out.  But I felt compelled to do so, not as “an exhibitionist engaging in intellectual masturbation,” but rather as a man of principles, someone who prefers choosing dignity over cowardice and fear of the herd.  Besides, since when does a citizen who dares openly express his viewpoint in a democracy become an intellectual maturbator?  Well, clearly, that occurs whenever his viewpoint differs from that of Santos and the herd. 
When did any of you ever muster the courage to do such a thing?  After all, the norm is simply to wear the muzzle and thus stifle ones human dignity.  Again, it was far more than simple ego that pushed  me to protest.  Principle and passion for democracy were the driving forces.  It was also an experiment of sorts in democracy.  Would citizens understand my protest in favor of THE FIRST AMENDMENT and DEMOCRACY on the Fourth of July… or would they perceive my exercise of FREEDOM OF SPEECH as nothing more than a RUDE action?  Alas, most of those present did not seem to understand the First Amendment at all and chose to perceive my action as nothing but gratuitous OFFENSIVENESS.  Nevertheless, some people did congratulate me. 

It seems probable that most people here on the Cape do not even understand that, as mentioned,  VIGOROUS DEBATE and FREEDOM OF SPEECH constitute the very cornerstones of a thriving democracy.   Santos evidently does not grasp that.  In fact, perhaps most citizens (and librarians) on Cape Cod do not understand and, more importantly, DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND. 
For me, the Fourth of July should not be yet another day to celebrate COMMERCE or, to paraphrase Santos, for “exhibitionist[s] engaging in [COMMERCIAL] masturbation.”  It should be a day to celebrate AMERICA’S INDEPENDENCE from AUTOCRATIC RULE, and its adoption of DEMOCRACY, and its cornerstones.  The FIRST AMENDMENT is what differentiates America from every other country.  In Europe and Canada, for example, speech is muzzled by relatively recent adopted “hate-speech legislation.”  Obama, Hillary, and company are currently trying to adopt similar restrictions on the FIRST AMENDMENT.  In Europe and Canada, one can actually be arrested and tried in a court of law for simply stating a fact.  As incredible as that may seem to you, it happened to Geert Wilders, Elizabeth Sabbaditch-Wolff, Lars Hedegaard and others, who simply stated facts regarding Islam.  OFFENDED Muslims complained.  Wilders et al were then brought to trial!  That’s all it took.  But in America, speech that may OFFEND you or someone else is protected speech.  In other words, it is not legal to arrest me for carrying a placard with a word or thought that OFFENDS you.  Sadly, Santos and the rest of you don’t seem to understand that basic tenet of American freedom.  How did the educational system fail you so miserable with its regard? 
Again, the word FUCKING is clearly protected speech, which is why I use it here in its entirety, as opposed to truncating it into the rather childishly, hypocritical “F-word.” Citizens like you need to understand that.  In fact, back in the 60s a man entered a courtroom with a shirt:  FUCK THE DRAFT.  He was arrested!  But later the Supreme Court overturned that arrest based on the FIRST AMENDMENT.  Why do so many people FEAR a simple, harmless word like FUCKING, a word that is spoken aloud in the many DVDs that Santos and all of you evidently approve for library purchase.  How can you be such blatant hypocrites with that regard?  Might your rationalization be that tender children don’t ever watch those movies?  But is it the children who are tender or the adults?  That’s the real question.  BTW, I did not speak during my protest, unless spoken to.  The word FUCKING was simply written on a placard:  “CELEBRATE THE FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT, NOT COMMERCE!”
It saddens me that instead of standing up for FREEDOM, you seem to get angered by or even mock freedom.  The more citizens who behave as you do, the weaker our democracy shall become.  It is quite possible that you do not even cherish democracy at all, preferring instead plutocracy, oligarchy, or what some call corporocracy (rule by corporations or commerce).  In fact, it seems America is not really a democracy at all.  Yet our very presidents hypocritically declare how they wish to promote democracy abroad.  America is a PLUTOCRACY, where the wealthy have voice and the poor generally do not. 

Thus the focus of THE AMERICAN DISSIDENT is DEMOCRACY.  That the public librarians on Cape Cod would wish to keep such a locally-published journal completely out of the library system is indeed aberrant.  Librarians today seem more apt to behave as autocratic gatekeepers, than proponents of “freedom to read.” 
“If his publication has value than [sic] those with interest will find it,” states Santos.   Well, “value” is immaterial to the argument concerning the collection development policy, which does not state “points of view” OF VALUE.  Besides, “value” for you might not be “value” for me, and vice versa.  “Value” is clearly a subjective term.  Nevertheless, institutional subscribers that find “value” in The American Dissident include Harvard University, Yale University, Johns Hopkins University, Buffalo University, Brown University, University of Wisconsin, New York Public Library, Concord Free Public Library, Lincoln Public Library, Iowa Public Library, Newton Free Public Library, etc.   
Finally, as I always tell my opponents, rather than call me names, show me the lie or irregularity in the logic, and I shall be quick to OPENLY admit fault.  Why do you find it so difficult to openly admit fault?  Hope to hear from a few more of you.  Surely, there must be one of you who thinks out of the mold and can actually see truth in what I state here.  Surely, Cape Cod cannot be this mentally backwater. 

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:10:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Criticism of Cape Cod Librarians
From: vhewitt@clamsnet.org
To: danielsantos@comcast.net
CC: todslone@hotmail.com; bll@brewsterladieslibrary.org; pmarshall@bournelibrary.org; centervillelibrary@yahoo.com; igillies@clamsnet.org; jwiley@clamsnet.org; dennismemorial@gmail.com; jlanglois@town.dennis.ma.us; cbryan@easthamlibrary.org; lmorrissey@falmouthpubliclibrary.com; reference@hyannislibrary.org; kmahoney@clamsnet.org; smurphy@clamsnet.org; lamend@clamsnet.org; amyryan@clamsnet.org; whelden@comcast.net; whpl_mail@clamsnet.org; sbarron@yarmouth.ma.us; ahennessy@clamsnet.org; info@nantucketatheneum.org; bcollins@capecod.edu; sturgislibrary@comcast.net; eclaus@kinlingrover.com; betsy@morsenewell.com; wmills@capecodonline.com; jlipkin@capecodonline.com; editor@capecod.edu; jkershner@capecod.edu

Just a friendly reminder to all that any emails sent from staff at a municipal library or that include staff at municipal libraries as recipients are public records and will need to be disclosed if a public records request is made to a municipal library.



From: danielsantos@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Criticism of Cape Cod Librarians
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:35:29 -0400
To: todslone@hotmail.com
Dear recipients of Todd Sloan’s email.

Preface: I speak for myself and not as the representative of any organization.

Mr. Sloan is correct in that he is unlikely to get a response to his rant. If one must yell to be heard then the message likely carries little substance. Mr. Sloan wallows in bloviating (Thanks, Mr. Will) self-interest. If his publication has value than those with interest will find it. 

At last year’s Barnstable Village 4th of Julyparade and festivities, Mr. Sloan walked around the village as a human billboard, sporting the “F” word. Apparently being offensive is another tactic in his arsenal to garner attention to himself. He is no more than an exhibitionist engaging in intellectual masturbation. No wonder his message is falling on deaf ears.

Dan Santos

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Lucy Loomis

Open Letter to the Public Librarians of Cape Cod

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.
—Charles Willett, Founding Editor, Counterpoise, and retired librarian [remarks presented at the Fifth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries]

(Brenda Collins (Cape Cod Community College), Kathy Cockcroft (Brewster), Patrick Marshall (Bourne), Elizabeth Butler (Centerville), Irene Gillies (Chatham), Jennie Wiley (Cotuit), Nancy Symington (Dennis Memorial), Jessica Langlois (Dennis), Phil Inman (East Dennis), Cheryl Bryan (Eastham), Lisa Sherman (Edgartown), Leslie A. Morrissey (Falmouth), Ginny Hewitt (Harwich), Renee Voorhees (Marstons Mills), Kathleen Mahoney (Mashpee), Sondra Murphy (Oak Bluffs), Lee Ann Amend (Osterville), Cheryl Napsha (Provincetown), Lucy Loomis (Sturgis), Tricia Ford (Truro), Amy Ryan (Vineyard Haven), Elaine McIlroy (Wellfleet), Kathleen Swetish (West Barnstable), Pamela Olson (West Falmouth), Shirley Barron (South Yarmouth), Anne Cifelli (Yarmouth Port), Mary Reuland (Snow Library):

Thanks to the Internet, this letter will form part of the public record, as it is now published on The American Dissident blog site (wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com).  If none of you respond, as is perhaps likely, that shall be noted.  By the way, it took me about an hour to locate and compile your names and email addresses.  In fact, a few of you do not even list your names and email addresses on your library’s website.  Why not?

In any case, most of you, I’ve already contacted in vain, which is why I am writing this letter.  A number of you have simply ignored my communications (e.g., Osterville, Falmouth, Brewster Ladies).  Others simply greeted me with frowns, while a few actually banned my flyers on their public grounds (Sturgis and Yarmouth Port).  In fact, the director of Sturgis Library even instructed me not to speak to staff with regards the banning and rejected a free subscription offer to The American Dissident, a 501c3 nonprofit journal devoted to literature, democracy, and dissidence, printed in Barnstable.  And yet why should I even be offering a free subscription?  Do Time, Poetry, People, and National Geographic do that? 

Not one of you to date has been willing to subscribe (only $20/year) to the journal or express an unusual openness to the ideas expounded in it.  The Clams network of libraries on Cape Cod has consequently conveyed a uniform closed-mindedness with its regard.  Why?  Is it because the journal’s substance is DEMOCRACY and CRITICISM, as opposed to the sex and violence you tend to purchase in the form of DVDs?  Is it simply a panem et circenses issue?

What is therefore wrong with the libraries on Cape Cod?  Why do they all seem to be staffed with chamber-of-commerce-friendly directors, instead of free-thinking citizens with a definite responsibility towards democracy?  Why do you seem to fear and disdain criticism so much?  Why do you seem so opposed to vigorous debate and freedom of speech, democracy’s cornerstones?  On the one hand, you celebrate Banned Books Week while, on the other, you ban periodicals like The American Dissident.  How do you manage to intellectually justify such egregious hypocrisy? 

In the case of Sturgis Library, the collection development policy clearly stipulates:  “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view […],” “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval […], and “Libraries should challenge censorship […].”  With that regard, Sturgis subscribes to Poetry magazine, which presents the established-order point of view on what constitutes good poetry, but refuses to subscribe to The American Dissident, which clearly presents an anti-established-order viewpoint regarding poetry.  One might wonder how the director intellectually justifies such an evident breach of the collection development policy.  “This is a family-friendly place” and “I think there’s too much negativity” constitute her rationale. Yet such remarks clearly skirt the issue entirely and do not, by any means whatsoever, constitute a valid explanation.  Besides, since when did democracy and dissidence become family un-friendly, while sex and violence family friendly?  Perhaps librarians need to take courses on logical argumentation.  By the way, the staff at Sturgis have been friendly and quite helpful.  Clearly, this letter is not directed at them.  As for the two trustees, Ellie Claus and Betsy Newell, with whom I met, they proved as closed-minded as the director.  Dan Santos, the third trustee, didn’t even bother showing up for the meeting.    

As you certainly must know, the above policy statements come directly from the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights.”  Interestingly, or rather aberrantly, the ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom (Ministry of Intellectual Freedom in Orwell’s 1984) simply refuses to respond to my grievance regarding Sturgis.  Not a word from it!  Not even a lame rationalization, as in “we’re family friendly.”  Silence seems to have become, for far too many librarians, the librarian’s modus operandi, the de facto “Library Bill of Rights.”  Librarians on the Cape, rather than individuals, seem to move as a groupthink librarian herd. 

In any event, what good can it do the nation to have directors like you in charge of what the public may or may not read in its public libraries?  What good can it possibly do for democracy?  Why would not one of you likely accept a bulletin-board donation for a space devoted to DEMOCRACY?  On top of such a board, one could write:  WARNING:  POSTINGS ON THIS BOARD MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO ADULT CHILDREN. 

As a tax-paying citizen, should I not be fully outraged that my voice is banned at one of your public libraries?  Should I not be outraged that bed & breakfast brochures, Prime Time, and other free publications are permitted, but not my 501c3 nonprofit flyers?  Even dogs have been permitted to run around inside the library!  If one or even two of you do not believe in the curiosity-killed-the-cat dictum (it’s so much easier to be indignant!), read the article published in Counterpoise for Social Responsibilities, Liberty, and Dissent, regarding my struggle vis-à-vis democracy-scorning public librarians exterior to the Cape (www.theamericandissident.org/orgs/american_library_association.html).  Thank you for your hopeful attention.