Barnstable Village Cultural District

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? 

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.

Betsy Newell

Celebrate Banning Books and Patrons Week

 

Daniel W. Santos

And, perhaps most importantly of all, [these rights] include the right to voice our opinions freely and to publish them without hindrance.  Yet freedom of speech is under attack today all across Europe. I have experienced the full brunt of it in my own country, Austria...

              —Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Here in America, one might of course say the same thing.  Far too many faceless little-caesars like Daniel Santos, Betsy Newell, Eleanor Claus, and Lucy Loomis remain willfully ignorant of citizen rights and are bent on limiting those rights and punishing anyone who dares actually exercise them. 

My right to voice my opinions freely and publish them without hindrance was clearly violated by those faceless little-caesars, each of whom firmly backed the decision to have me permanently trespassed from Sturgis Library without warning or DUE PROCESS on June 19, 2012.

Email from Daniel Santos

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 4^thof 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

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

Rebuttal of Daniel Santos' Email

Santos contradicts himself by arguing he speaks "not as the representative of any organization" because he is clearly a representative trustee of Sturgis Library, which receives public funding. 

The RANT Santos mentions is really nothing but his own RANT: "Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view and Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."

Why is it a RANT? It is a RANT because HE and Sturgis Library do not even believe in their own statement.  After all, if they did, they wouldn't have permanently banned my viewpoint and me from its premises.

Oddly, Santos has not been sufficiently educated to be able to understand this egregious contradiction, which is why he dismisses it as a RANT.

Of course, it is in my "self-interest" to fight for my rights as a citizen in a democracy, especially when those like Santos seek to eliminate them.

Santos, former chairperson of Barnstable Municipal Airport Committee, willfully remains ignorant of America's First Amendment. "Being offensive," as he puts it, is in fact expression protected by the First Amendment.  Santos cannot understand that offensive for him might be valid criticism for me, and vice versa.  He chooses to remain willfully ignorant. 

His paucity of education can only explain his inability to understand that my "offensive" message was a message in support of the First Amendment. CELEBRATE THE FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT, NOT COMMERCE. That was my "billboard." Santos would of course much rather celebrate COMMERCE, which was why he was so offended by the "billboard."

Santos would never think of celebrating the First Amendment on July 4th. All he can think about is COMMERCE.  Santos and so many others like him seek to weaken, if not eliminate, the First Amendment.

For Santos and those like him, fighting openly for ones First Amendment rights is nothing but "intellectual masturbation."  In other words, any thinking outside of the Santos box of commerce should be done in the privacy of ones home. 

BTW, I have offered to meet with Santos and the other trustees to discuss the issues at hand.  He and they have yet to respond to that offer.  After all, how could meeting with me possibly further his and their careers? 

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.

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 4^th 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.

Ginny

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

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 4^th 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

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.