Anne Brennan Cape Cod Times

The following brief essay was sent in 2021 to the Cape Cod Times as an alt-opinion.  No response was ever received.  

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

From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 8:14 AM

To: abrennan@capecodonline.com <abrennan@capecodonline.com>

Cc: Lawrence Brown <columnresponse@gmail.com>; Brent Harold <kinnacum@gmail.com>; jade.francis@capecod.edu <jade.francis@capecod.edu>; alexandria.zine@capecod.edu <alexandria.zine@capecod.edu>; seachange@capecod.edu <seachange@capecod.edu>; info@sturgislibrary.org <info@sturgislibrary.org>

Subject: The Great Diversity Delusion/Diversion

 

To the Cape Cod Times,

Please publish the following op-ed.  Thank you!

Au plaisir,

G. Tod Slone

Barnstable, MA

The Great Diversity Delusion/Diversion

Diversity is a political ideology.  It has proven time and again to be a veritable plague on reason and truth. Proponents of the diversity ideology tend to be hypocrites and anti-white racists.  They tend to be as unoriginal as it gets and as unquestioning and unchallenging as it gets.  Sadly, the top priority for Anne Brennan, new editor of the Gannon corporate-media-controlled Cape Cod Times is… diversity.  

          How to rise to the power-position of a newspaper editor?  Well, just follow the prime rules for how to be a loyal lackey.  Rule #1:  do not make waves.  Rule #2:  do not buck the system.  Rule #3:  do not go against the grain.  The same rules, of course, apply to how to become a favored newspaper columnist or tenured professor.  And so society ends up not with courageous, truth-telling individuals, but rather with in-lockstep conformists, the kind the local chambers of commerce adore.  Money rules and always has ruled.  Money controls the press, certainly not truth.  

          Brennan boasts:  “Last year, I shared my plans to increase the inclusivity of our coverage and to diversify our newsroom staff so that Cape Cod Times reporters, editors and photographers mirror the demographics of the Cape’s population by 2025.”  She does not at all mention striving towards unbiased, rude-truth reporting as a goal and covering stories that her bosses might not like, nor does she mention providing a platform for all those on Cape Cod!  Gannon, as well as Paul Pronovost, her predecessor, refused to publish, let alone respond to, any criticism I sent with their regard (see, for example: wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2021/01/anne-brennan.html, wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/search?q=Cape+cod+times, and wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2015/05/paul-pronovost-and-noah-hoffenberg.html).  

          In fact, I have yet to see any criticism at all regarding those editors, published in their newspaper.  Both refused to even publish the fact that I, a local writer, had been permanently banned from my local library, Sturgis Library, without warning and without due process.  Well, I suppose at least now, Brennan has openly stated precisely why.  For her, I do not matter because of my white skin color, though I also suspect that the autocrat librarian, Lucy Loomis, has relationships with the Brennans of Cape Cod.  And why don’t the Times’ lifer professor-columnists Brent Harold, Dan McCullough, and Lawrence Brown give a damn and write a column, as in “Local Senior Citizen Banned for Life from a Cape Cod Public Library”?  Well, back to rule #1….  Now, here’s an interesting comment from, I suspect, one of Brown’s students regarding the cartoon I sketched on Brown and posted on The American Dissident website (see above link):  

hey your a dumbass to go at mr.B like that. greatest of all time. he is ten timee smarter then you and if you got a problem then my email is dmchockey@.icloud.com if you trying to catch these hands. [sic]

John Reed and Lawrence Brown

Well, John Reed is dead. He was the intellectually corrupt head of the local human rights commission in Barnstable, MA.  For him, I was the wrong race, and so to be ignored.  So, how can I possibly write, RIP?  Rather RII, Rest In Infamy!  Below is an aquarelle I sketched on him a while ago.  Bureaucrat educator/columnist Lawrence Brown just wrote a Cape Cod Times hagiography on him, "Opinion/Brown: John Reed Cape civil rights activist pushed us to think about race, justice," which is how I was informed of the death.  And so, I write a counter-essay, which will be sent to the brick wall Times, which refuses to publish anything I send it...

Larry Brown Cape Cod Times

The following cartoon and counter-essay were not permitted in the pages of the Cape Cod Times.

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

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

White Bad, Black Good

First, the term “liberal” ought to imply real belief in free speech, vigorous debate, and equality.   Unfortunately, today, the term “liberal” has come to mean left-wing Democrat-Party partisanship against free speech, vigorous debate, and equality.  True liberalism has been replaced by the faux-liberalism of diversity, inclusion, and equity, Orwellian code for unity of thought, exclusion of unwanted ideas, and racial inequality of opportunity.  Thus, the term left-wing ought to be separated from, not equated with, the term “liberal.”  Second, differences, including height, attractiveness, sex, intellectual capacity, physical strength, skin color, wealth, etc., actually do exist… and to judge is natural… but to stereotype on the basis of any of those differences inevitably defies reality.  Humans do have the capacity to weigh their judgments in accord with reality.  Sadly, many do not do that.  

Critical Race Theory teaches the white bad/black good (victim) stereotype falsity, which supports the adoption of double-standards falsity, including all whites are racists, while all blacks are not.  Falsity only ends up harming those who propagate it, who do so in an effort to somehow protect and empower.  Columnist Larry Brown and his Cape Cod Times have evidently embraced, rather than question and challenge, falsities pushed by CRT.  

Brown’s column, “I’m not racist, but …,” begs to be critically examined.  But those like Brown and the Times are opposed to questioning and challenging of their left-wing—not liberal—narrative.  The Times over the past decade, for example, has absolutely refused to publish anything I’ve sent it, including an account of my being permanently banned without warning or due process from my neighborhood library, Sturgis Library, for merely questioning and challenging the de facto policies adopted by its library director, Lucy Loomis, which, in particular, contradict its written policy that “libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view.”  For the Times, I illustrate “wrong think” and thus simply do not exist.

And so Brown begins his column by admitting to his white privilege, though doesn’t quite put it that way: “When I was a boy, we had Black maids come in once a week to help my mother.”  Well, when I was a boy, my family never had maids, black or white.  And indeed, white maids do exist, though perhaps not in Brown’s fantasy world.  Evoking that fact clearly is harmful to his left-wing narrative.  Now, I wonder how many maids the Obamas have on the Vineyard.  Are they white or black or both?  To pose that question could, however, be damaging to the stereotype adopted by Brown and the Times.  

It is intellectually belittling for Brown to evoke one convenient example of his white mother sending a get-well card to one of her black maids, who purportedly stated that to be “the only deliberate act of kindness she had experienced from a white person in her whole life.”  In other words, white bad/black good.  Now, as mentioned, when I was a boy, my family never had maids.  But to state that would be an affront to the white-privilege stereotype, espoused by Brown.  Just the same, I wonder what the three black youths might have said to each other after they beat and robbed me in Baton Rouge one morning.  The only deliberate act of kindness they’d experienced from a white person in their whole lives?  After all, they went on a shopping spree with the credit card they stole from me.  Brown states regarding the maid:  “Think for a moment what that means. Minorities tell us all the time that they experience life in America differently.”  Evidently, my experience contradicts Brown’s stereotype.  In essence, one example (one experience) should never be used to stereotype entire races.  How can Brown, a Cape Cod Academy humanities teacher, not comprehend that?  Well, I certainly made sure my experience didn’t; sadly, Brown made sure his did.

“There’s more than one kind of racist,” argues Brown.  Yes, there are black racists and white racists.  Ah, but he does not state it that way at all.  After all, he has been indoctrinated that blacks cannot be/are not racists.  Imagine if the Times had published an op-ed on black racists.  Pipe-dream?  You bet!  Brown argues that “Class One racists react viscerally to people of color, often to gays, mixed-race couples, mixed-race ads on TV.”  What I am against is the undemocratic (authoritarian) social engineering effected behind the scenes by societal elites.  Clearly, “mixed-race ads” form an integral part of such social engineering, which seeks in the long run to terminate nations by mixing populations via population importations and to eliminate, in a racist endeavor, the white race (consider the “tanning of America” ideology as propagated, for example, by Tracey Ross in The Root blog on Washington Post).  Brown argues without an iota of proof of assertion:  “They’re angry when issues of slavery are taught in school, ‘dragging our country through the mud’.”  Well, I’m angry because in general the truth, the whole truth regarding slavery is rarely if ever taught in government schools (see, for example, “1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project").  

Sadly, Brown’s entire piece is one-sided.  Whites are racist, while there is no mention of racist blacks.  White supremacy is mentioned, while black supremacy (e.g., Black Panthers and Nation of Islam) is not mentioned.  Brown argues, “It’s precisely the failure to recognize the harm in supremist [sic] thinking that the left wants to address.”  The reality, however, is highly political, which is why the left actually wants to promote a sort of POC supremacy aka CRT, which will increase its political power… or so it hopes.  

Brown argues that “A humane and law-abiding society should want to isolate and contain its most violent members.”  Well, we agree on that point, but is it not the left-wingers, who chose to do  nothing regarding the violent Antifa/BLM rioters?  In fact, did they not seek to release more such violent persons from the nation’s jails, as well as eliminate bail requisites and permit many of those arrested to walk free?  

Brown’s left good/right bad essay concludes:  “After half a century, liberals have failed to shame racists out of their racism.  We have to argue them out of it with the love and faith decency demands.”  And yet “love and faith” are certainly NOT what the left-wing has been pushing, but rather anti-white racist hatred, reparations, severe school indoctrination, and Marxist ideology.  Sadly, in America today truth is not rewarded, whereas ideological adherence is rewarded…

……………………………………………………

NB:  Brown’s email address is not available on the Times’ website or on that of Cape Cod Academy.  Cocoon buffered!

 

Dan McCullough and Cape Cod Times

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

Privileged columnists like McCullough don't give a shite that most citizens do NOT have voice in the press.  Why is one community college instructor given voice week after week after week, while others are not?  

Brent Harold

 

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

Rule of the Oxymoron

Autocrats for Freedom Calling for a Rethinking of Liberty

Caveat:  The Cape Cod Times would NOT publish the following counter-essay.  The Times is, after all, a highly biased Gannett-corporate media organization, certainly not a free-press entity.  Harold, however, briefly responded... or sort of (see email exchange after the counter-essay).

Unsurprisingly, Cape Cod Times columnist Brent Harold’s “Government, liberty and our founding paradox” is really nothing but a Democrat-Party establishment screed.  Harold pokes at Trump, but doesn’t have the guts to poke at current president Biden.  He pokes at January 6th, but fails egregiously to evoke the summer BLM/Antifa riots of great destruction.  He concludes, “It would seem that, given the last four years and the sort of liberty exhibited on Jan.6, that paradox is an idea in dire need of a renaissance of understanding.”

Now, that’s a good one:  “a renaissance of understanding”!  Of course, that implies “understanding” (and conforming to!) the way how Harold and his Democrat Party “understand,” including increased restrictions on freedom, increased Big Tech censorship of ideas he and his party do not like, increased government watchdogs, increased imposition of cultural-race theory and consequent anti-white racism and word policing, increased absence of real vigorous debate, increased taxation without representation, and on and on.

Might Harold perchance actually be unaware that Biden is now president?  Could he really be unaware of the ills Biden has already caused, including the killing of 10,000 jobs, continuation of Obama’s babies in cages (uh, “shelters” now), opening the southern border to mass migration during a pandemic of epic proportions, etc.?  Harold’s party wants to kill freedom of speech, certainly not promote it.  Its campaign against “misinformation” is itself “misinformation.”

Cuis custodies ipsos custodes? had written Juvenal several thousand years ago.  Who will watch the Democrat-Party watchers, the misinformation police?  In essence, who are going to be the judges of what is a lie and what is not a lie, what is “misinformation” and what is not “misinformation”?  That is the crux, the one Harold and his Cape Cod Times seem utterly incapable of comprehending!  

Those who never test the waters of democracy ought not to be writing about freedom and democracy!  Did Harold ever go against the grain in support of freedom of speech at any of the colleges and universities employing him, including Stanford University, Brown University, Trinity College, Wesleyan University, University of Hartford, and the New School for Social Research?  Of course not.  And yet those institutions do NOT have good records regarding freedom of speech!  Examine them on the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education!

As for me, I stood up and tested the waters wherever I taught, including at Fitchburg State University, Grambling State University, Bennett College, and American Public University.   Of course, I never got tenure.  Of course, the intellectually corrupt academics always managed to boot me out of their fiefdoms.  Rather truth than the easy life!  

The waters of democracy in academe are extremely murky!   The waters on Cape Cod, where Harold and I both dwell, are also extremely murky!  Does Harold give a damn?  No.  Does he give a damn that Sturgis Library permanently banned me w/o warning or due process for the crime of freedom of expression?  No.  Does he give a damn that not one library on Cape Cod will subscribe to the 501c3 nonprofit literary journal that I publish?  No.  Does he give a damn that his Cape Cod Times refuses to publish any criticism of its editor and would never publish this counter-op-ed?  No.  Does he give a damn that Mid-Cape Cultural Council refuses to respond to my requests for funding?  No.  Does he give a damn that the Cape Cod Museum of Art refuses to respond to my art proposals?  No.  Does he give a damn that Provincetown Arts refuses to publish any criticism of Provincetown arts and that the Provincetown Banner, which fed him for a while, refused to publish my criticism of the Fine Arts Work Center of Provincetown?  No.  Does he give a damn that the Cultural Center of Cape Cod boasts “inclusion and diversity,” yet absolutely refuses to include my voice, my art, and my writing?  No.   And I could go on and on.  

Finally, what I liked about Trump (oh my, am I a white supremacist Nazi islamophobic misogynist homophobe now?) is that he really did expose the mega-bias corruption of the media, including Harold’s Cape Cod Times.  That in itself made Trump’s tenure worthwhile.  Trump also exposed the utter lack of accountability of government bureaucrats, including the likes of Hillary Clinton and Biden himself, who became a multimillionaire… serving the public for the Democrat Party, of course.  As for me, I am not a blind partisan like Harold.  I am not a blind-Trump supporter.   I am a real freedom of speech advocate, not a hack partisan advocating for fake freedom.  I am not a hypocrite with voice like Harold; I am a truth-teller with no voice… and I’d have it no other way.  In 2016, I sent Harold a criticism of one of his columns.  He actually responded, though in typical kill the messenger non-response fashion:  “maybe if you were less inclined to insult you would find yourself getting more of the kind of attention you want. Just a thought.”  A thought… or rather classic absence of thought.  In essence, criticize Harold and his ilk is to “insult” and be an attention seeker.  No thought, no cogent counterarguments necessary at all from them.  Babies in cages?  How about columnists in cribs?

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

From: Brent Harold <kinnacum@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 12:41 PM

To: George Slone

Subject: Re: Not for the Thin-Skinned: A Rejected Letter to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times

 

maybe if you were less inclined to insult you would find yourself getting more of the kind of attention you want. Just a thought.

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

From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 1:41 PM

To: Brent Harold

Subject: Re: Not for the Thin-Skinned: A Rejected Letter to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times

 

To Brent Harold,

Well, sadly, I can't say your brief response was at all original.  Its utter lack of originality did, however, make me LOL.  For that, I thank you.  How easy it is for you to accept when the guy next door, whose opinions or manner of expressing them you dislike, has his civil liberties revoked and is not permitted to express a counterpoint of view.  Sadly, your thinly-veiled ad hominem non-response has become so very common today amongst the nation’s so-called intellectuals, especially on the left.   You failed to counter via reason and fact just one point made in my letter.  How to understand a professor (or journalist, for that matter) who has attained that lofty status without even possessing a critical, independent mind... and spine?   

Sincerely,

G. Tod Slone

From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 10:00 AM

To: kinnacum@gmail.com <kinnacum@gmail.com>; letters@capecodonline.com <letters@capecodonline.com>; Driscoll, Kathi <kdriscoll@capecodonline.com>; abrennan@capecodonline.com <abrennan@capecodonline.com>

Subject: Brent Harold satirized in a new P. Maudit cartoon

 

To Brent Harold et al,

Mind-boggling how you and the media in general are so blind to the extremely low esteem the public has for you.  One major problem is the media's general refusal to publish counter op-eds, those that counter the media narrative.  Anyhow, please do publish the cartoon in Cape Cod Times and let me know of your decision.  Thank you for your attention!

Au plaisir,

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

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630

From: George Slone

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 10:35 AM

To: info@brentharold.com <info@brentharold.com>; kinnacum@gmail.com <kinnacum@gmail.com>; letters@capecodonline.com <letters@capecodonline.com>

Cc: Driscoll, Kathi <kdriscoll@capecodonline.com>; abrennan@capecodonline.com <abrennan@capecodonline.com>; 

Subject: A counter op-ed with real teeth...

 

To Brent Harold, Cape Cod Times columnist:

You seem to be a major hypocrite, writing about freedom of all things.    Well, such hypocrisy tends to be the focus of my cartooning, so I shall get to sketching a cartoon on you later today.  Your response to my 2016 letter (see it and my letter below) was puerile in its manifestation of spinelessness and kill-the-messenger absence of cogent counter-argument:    

“maybe if you were less inclined to insult you would find yourself getting more of the kind of attention you want. Just a thought.”

Some thought!  In essence, to criticize Brent Harold is a synonym for “insult,” and he who dares criticize Brent Harold is an attention seeker.  And you have a PhD?  Wow!  

In any event, below is my counter op-ed to your op-ed in today’s Cape Cod Times.   Will you request the latter to  publish it, in the name of diversity of opinions and inclusion, as well as freedom?  Of course not!  After all, you are a lover of freedom.  

Au plaisir,

G. Tod Slone, former anti-establishment university professor and current anti-establishment poet, writer, cartoonist, and editor

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

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 11:19 AM

To: kinnacum@gmail.com; info@brentharold.com

Cc: ppronovost@capecodonline.com; sturgislibrary@comcast.net

Subject: Not for the Thin-Skinned: A Rejected Letter to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times

 

To Brent Harold, Former English Professor, Cape Cod Times columnista:

Well, I read through your “Another View” column, “Does Inequality Foster Terrorism?”  How amazing that you managed to slip in the term “climate change,” while never even mentioning the term Islam or Muslim, as in Muslim terrorists. 

Now, if the Cape Cod Times was not run by such an amazingly thin-skinned editor, Paul Pronovost, whose mantra is Thou Shalt Not Criticize Journalists, it might be apt to publish a real “Another View,” as opposed to the “Same Old PC View.”   Hypocrites at the helm!  What else is new, eh?  My article would be titled:  “Does PC-Indoctrination Foster Blindness to Islamic Terrorism?”  Now, I am left wondering if you’ve gotten this far in reading this counterpoint response to your article… or do you simply and immediately knee-jerk close the door a la Pronovost to any point of view critical of yours?  

In any case, you naively (i.e., indoctrinatedly) ask, “Is there a link between human misery and terrorism?”  Yes, poor poverty-stricken Saudi aristocrat Bin Laden!  And how about the other poverty-stricken Saudi aristocrats who apparently funded 9/11?  Didn’t you notice that in the news lately?  Or are you simply awe-stricken by the lovely photo of Obama bowing down to Saudi billionaire dictators?  Hmm.

You note that those waging the “war on terrorism” tend to believe terrorists “are ‘mad men’ with a perverse penchant for torturing who ‘hate freedom’ or ‘hate pleasure’.”  Well, Islam is the opposite of freedom.  Why don’t you know that?  Are you not educated?  Islam means SUBMISSION, not religion of peace, though Obama would rather We, the People believe in the lie!   Why don’t you know that?  Are you not sufficienty independent-minded to wonder about Islam’s less-than-perfect PC-image?  Why the fear to name the culprit???  Is it the same fear that enabled you to float through life as an obedient never questioning and never challenging the diverse hands feeding you as English professor?  

You continue, noting that the supposition of those waging the “war on terrorism” regarding terrorists ought to be replaced with “they hate being the wretched of the earth, they hate the economic systems and governments which produce inequality.”  Yes, how nice to live in a little dacha in Wellfleet (and another in Puerto Rico) discussing with other Wellfleet dachitics about income inequality!  Ah, but Islamic terrorists do hate inequality.  They love equality as long as under Sharia law, well, with the minor exception for women and homosexuals and kuffars and apostates and slaves and rare dissident thinkers!    

Your poverty argument belongs in an obligatory freshman-orientation English course called Multiculti-Diversity 101 aka Horseshit 101.  What you really want is censorship, ostracizing, and blacklisting of those not of the PC-ilk.  What you really want is life in Cuba or the former USSR, as long as you are one of the privileged with a dacha, you know, like Bernie, the guy you praise.  How to live a life of luxury while simultaneously decrying income inequality!  

You are like Lucy Loomis, the library director who permanently banned me without due process from taxpayer-funded Sturgis Library in Barnstable, thus assuring the denial of my very civil rights on Cape Cod, for I am no longer permitted to attend any cultural or political events held at my neighborhood library.  My crime was a SPEECH CRIME, written in an open letter to the library directors of the Clams Library System of Cape Cod—devoid of threats or even PC-prohibited vocabulary—denouncing librarian hypocrisy with regards written library policy, in particular, that “libraries should provide materials and information presenting ALL points of view.”  My point of view has been permanently banned.  Do you care?  Nope!  Got guts?  Of course you don't!  I thus rest my case…   

[No response received]

Margaret Murphy Fine Arts Work Center of Provincetown

≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≥

Open Letter to Margaret Murphy, Interim Exec., Director, Fine Arts Work Center  

“Words, words, words,” had written French poet Léo Ferré.  And so in the Cape Cod Times, we have “words, words, words.”  Columnist Kathi Scrizzi Driscoll’s article, “Leadership changes at Provincetown arts center as it renews diversity commitment," is indeed “words, words, words”:  money, money, money… and racism, racism, racism!  Might that summarize the arts and poetry today on ole Cape Cod?  Driscoll notes, “[FAWC] Trustees have credited [Exec. Dir. Richard] MacMillan with raising millions of dollars for the work center that will help stabilize its future.”   Stabilize or rather monetize?  And should art and poetry be stabilized?  

Driscoll notes, “The nationally known work center, founded by artists and writers, was one of just two Cape Cod institutions—the Provincetown Art Association and Museum was the other—to win a grant in the National Endowment for the Arts’ first round of $27.5 million funding for 2021.  Money, money, money! On the other note, Driscoll echoes FAWC officials “will continue to develop long-term efforts toward ensuring that every member of our community feels safe, supported, heard and valued.”  Every member EXCEPT, of course, he or she who dares criticize FAWC!  “How dare you!” had said the teenager.  As an example, I have actually dared… not to adorn the usual artist/poet-sheep conformist money-begging attire and have actually stood up to criticize FAWC and its publicist, the Cape Cod Times.  Would FAWC ever offer me a fellowship?  No way, Jose!  OMG, did I just commit the crime of cultural linguistic appropriation? 

In today’s politically-correct society, boasting efforts of inclusion and diversity inevitably ends up meaning efforts of exclusion and uniformity—thou shalt be in-lockstep with the reigning ideology!  Moreover, when art and poetry end up with executive directors and boards of trustees, art and poetry ineluctably end up coopted, castrated, and corralled… in the name of inclusion and diversity.  Artists and poets end up adopting the sad modus operandi of backslapping and self-congratulating… due to the inevitable absence (i.e., exclusion) of real criticism.   And without such criticism, improvement is likely never going to really happen.  

Silence tends to be, apart from ad hominem, the only defense for those in power positions, including executive directors and museum curators (censors).  FAWC never responded to the criticism I sent over the past decade and a half.  Ah, but FAWC publicist Provincetown Arts’ Executive Editor Chris Busa responded, though not at all intelligently:  

“Silly Slone, I was trained in literary studies during a decade in graduate school with some of the foremost critics of the time. Your idea of criticism, from the shrillness of your rants, excludes any sense of illumination. Please do not contact me again.”  

Apparently, those “foremost critics” failed to teach Busa how to grow a spine and respond with reason and facts.  Power positions inevitably demand a certain intellectual corruption:  rather funding and pleasing the herd of supporters, than truth—rude truth.  Is that what art and poetry should be about?  Methinks no; youthinks yes…

Open Wide

(A Poem for Margaret Murphy)

In general, it seems, 

people don’t think; 

they just swallow. 

In general, it seems,

artists, writers, and 

their executive directors

don’t think; they just swallow…

…………………………………………………………………………………….

NB:  Sent to FAWC Margaret Murphy, Richard MacMillan, Kirsten Andersen, Bob Bailey, Susan Blood, Naya Bricher, Kelle Groom, Jennifer Jean, Gemma Leghorn, and the columnist in question.  No response received…

Anne Brennan

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

Brennan did not, as expected, respond to the above cartoon or email and essay below.  Brennan clearly is NOT an advocate of vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy and, once upon a time, of the free press.  

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

From: George Slone

Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 1:11 PM

To: abrennan@capecodonline.com <abrennan@capecodonline.com>; letters@capecodonline.com <letters@capecodonline.com>

Subject: Brennan criticized and featured in a new P. Maudit cartoon

 

To Anne Brennan, Editor, Cape Cod Times:

Please publish the following critique, as well as the attached cartoon.  Of course, it is highly likely that you will choose NOT to publish them, let alone respond.  Please then, for your sake, at least contemplate the hypocrisy of such an eventual decision...

Sincerely,

G. Tod Slone (PhD—Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit, Founding Editor (1998)

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

www.theamericandissident.org 

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com    

todslone@hotmail.com

A Wrong Focus for Journalism

Journalists seem to focus on anything but why they are so distrusted today.  Extreme bias, general intellectual corruption, inability to brook criticism, let alone encourage it, constant virtue-signaling, and suppression of stories that don’t fit the narrative have led me to distrust them.  Moreover, a “successful” journalist like any other professional—academic, political, literary or whatever—is one who always puts career above truth telling.  

Anne Brennan, the new editor of the Cape Cod Times, part of the Gannett media corporation, wants to focus, unsurprisingly and quite unoriginally, not on those faults, but rather on diversity.  “Our newsroom diversity promise,” the title of her editorial, begins with “The Cape Cod Times has a history of telling stories about the diverse members of our community…”  Well, it sure hasn’t told my story about being permanently banned from my neighborhood library on Cape Cod, despite a number of attempts on my part to interest it.  Why would a local newspaper not want to publish an account of that particular suppression of citizen freedom?  Intellectual corruption is the only response.  Likely the library director was and is friends with journalists at the Times.  The latter also refused to publish anything critical I sent to it over the past decade.  Clearly, its focus is not on TRUTH and issues of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, but rather on the PC-identity politics of thought uniformity.    

“Where we fall short is by not seeking diverse voices in the daily course of covering Cape Cod and the people who live and work here,” proclaims Brennan.  However, “diverse voices” is really nothing but code for uniformity of voices from people of different skin colors.  Then, surprise, the editor echoes:  “The egregious death of George Floyd at the hands of four Minneapolis police officers forced us all to think about the inequality and, yes, racism, that is an inherent part of the American story.”  Actually, it did not force me to think about that or anything else… because I am a staunch individual.  It did however remind me of the three black youths who attacked and robbed me in Baton Rouge, and the local newspaper, The Advocate, that refused to report on that incident.  Perhaps the Floyd incident should have further encouraged us not to simply open wide and swallow anything journalists push.  As far as “uncomfortable truths” go, Floyd was a black drug addict with a long criminal background and was high on drugs when arrested.   Why does Brennan purposefully omit that information?  And what about the statistics that clearly disprove the MSM “systemic racism” narrative, especially regarding cops?  

As mentioned, the real egregious problem—the elephant in the room—confronting newspapers like the Cape Cod Times, besides rejection of criticism when they’re concerned, is bias, not racism.  It appears, and one must underscore the word “appears,” that the new editor is at least aware of that core problem, as indicated in a different editorial, "A note to readers: The Cape Cod Times will no longer take editorial positions, endorse politicians":  “The decision for the Times to no longer take a stand on issues, unless they are of major importance, is driven by our desire to reduce the growing confusion over the difference between opinion and commentary and nonopinion news content.”  One must be suspicious, however, because clearly Brennan has endorsed the political position of identity politics.  She states, “Despite no longer taking positions on local issues, the Times will continue to be an unbiased authoritative source of information and community action.”  She also notes, “The goal of journalists and editors at the Times is to collect information and report the facts of a situation without bias in stories, photos, video and social media posts.”  But those statements seem to be examples of virtue-signaling, not reflections of reality.  A number of Times stories, for example, do NOT follow that recipe at all!  My bringing that to the attention of the editors, past and present, was of course futile and simply ignored.  For examples of my attempts, examine “The Whitewashing, uh, Blackwashing of BLM:  Questioning and Challenging the Parrots,” “To Herring or Not to Herring:  Protected Species for Some, But Not for Others,” and “To Noose or Not to Noose: In the Haze of Legal Vagueness.”  

Rather than address real problems confronting journalism, the Times is going to create a Diversity Advisory Board, yet another addition to the vast “diversity delusion” (Heather MacDonald’s book title) and ever-expanding diversity bureaucracy.   Anything but the rude truth!  “Rest assured, we are committed to fostering the already civil debate that occurs on our pages on a daily basis,” states Brennan.  “I look forward to reading what you have to say.”  Now, do you think she looks forward to reading what I have to say?  “Finally, we want to hear from you, our readers,” states Brennan, as if teaching a course in BS 101.  Oops, that’s incivil!  Here come the journalist censors, uh, moderators…

Jessica Hill

Protected Species for Some, But Not for Others
Because Some People Are More Equal Than Others

Jessica Hill’s article, “An ongoing battle:  Tribal members still harassed for pursuing aboriginal fishing rights,” fails to pose certain uncomfortable questions.  

The article presents so-called tribal members as victims without spine.  And perhaps indeed that is what they’ve become; that is what they’ve been encouraged to become! 

Tribal member Marcus Hendricks says he has been getting harassed often lately while fishing for herring.  People will yell at him or call the police and say he is trespassing or fishing illegally.  One woman approached him last week without a mask on and began to holler at him to stop fishing, he said. 

Well, perhaps Hendricks should have responded with a “screw you, Karen!”  [Karen is slang for an entitled, obnoxious, middle-aged white woman.]. Did he have a mask on… or do natives not have to wear masks… in the name of Orwellian equal treatment under the law?  Hill mentions that some, perhaps many, people (i.e., non-aboriginals) are unaware “of aboriginal rights to fish and harvest.”  But she fails to wonder how special rights for some people reinforce the constitutional notion of equality, a supposed basic right in America.  Indeed, when will all people finally experience equal rights under the law?  How does giving more rights to aboriginals or any other group serve the important notion of equality under the law?  Clearly, it does not!  

Since January, the Massachusetts Environmental Police have received 12 calls from the public for alleged violations in state herring runs that were ultimately found to be tribal members legally harvesting fish, according to Craig Gilvarg, press secretary for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 

Well, I was unaware that the state had a special police force for the environment.  Will it soon also have a Massachusetts Harassment Police force to respond to people who complain that somebody called them a name?  Are we not heading in that direction, in the direction where freedom of expression becomes a “harassment incident”?  Isn’t the term “harassment” being thrown around like “racism” to the point where it becomes nonsensical?  Hill further reports that “Hendricks said there are no repercussions for people who harass tribal members while fishing.”  But “harassment” has become such a vague term, which is why it has a precise legal definition, though really applied only to situations in work environments.  Does fishing for herring for sustenance legally constitute a workplace environment?  Likely it does not.  But if somehow it does, legally harassment means one person over and over bothering another person to the point where the latter can no longer perform his or her duties, in this case, scooping a net in the water.  

Hill notes, “The harvest of river herring was prohibited by the state Division of Marine Fisheries in 2006, but that does not apply to Native Americans.” She fails to mention why precisely it was prohibited.   One might reasonably assume herring was on its way to become an endangered species.  But if indeed that were the case, how does permitting some Americans to continue killing possibly protect the herring?  Shouldn’t native Americans also be concerned?  Do they really need to kill the dwindling herring to survive?  Would they starve to death if they too were not permitted to kill the herring?  What about federal and state handouts (i.e., grants et al)?  For the lack of transparency with that regard, examine “Newspaper finds access to tribal records irregular, especially if you are a believer in the Indian good/white bad stereotype.  

Hill reports that Hendricks also said, “We get harassed, but no one’s issued a citation, no one’s issued a verbal warning.”  Well, perhaps the reason for that might have been that no law was actually broken.  She then cites another tribal member, Natasha Cash:  “If there was a sign at every single fishing spot (and) herring run of what our rights were nobody would say anything.  Cape Cod is a peaceful, communal place. They’re not trying to cause trouble. They just don’t know.”  So, how about a sign like WARNING:  ONLY ABORIGINALS PERMITTED TO FISH HERE / WHITES NOT PERMITTED!  

Hill notes that “Although some residents may be aware of aboriginal rights, their perceptions of what Native Americans look like may be skewed. Tribal members have been approached and told they ‘don’t look Indian.’”  And so in this age of PC, oddly today we have environmentalist Karens harassing Native Americans.  What’s next?  Burning Karens at the stake?    

Cash said people often scold her and her children about taking herring, saying they are a protected species. Herring are back to their original numbers now, but many tribal members who fish are cautious about the populations, Cash said.  […] We can’t even afford food right now really.  We have to hunt and fish.

So, now we know the herring is indeed a protected species.  If “we” means all of us, then are all the Mashpee aboriginals really so poor that they cannot afford to buy food?  Do they not even qualify for food stamps?  Well, I google that and, according to the USDA, they certainly do qualify, as well as for other financial perks (see https://www.fns.usda.gov/program/assistance-native-americans).  Hill cites several others, including an aboriginal Cape Cod Times freelancer, Rachael Devaney.  

They’re tribal people, and they do have rights that not everybody has.  And people get so upset about it. A lot of people here say, ‘Well, I’m native. I was born here,’ and there’s just a huge distinction. It’s something that’s not talked about enough and it’s why all of this backlash continues to fall on Wampanoag people to prove who they are.

And so I send this to the Cape Cod Times since the subject is “not talked about enough.”  Will it publish it?  From my long experience with the Times, it will likely not! 

To Noose or Not to Noose
In the Haze of Legal Vagueness

“…intimidation” is an ambiguous qualifier for determining which representations of a noose count as free speech and which count as a hate speech/crime. 

—Mike Riggs, “Noose Laws Hang Free Speech,” Reason, 2008

General lack of citizen awareness/knowledge as to what precisely constitutes legal or illegal speech and expression gives those in power positions more power over common citizens.  It is sad that our laws are not clear at all.  Many citizens seem to believe that hate speech is actually illegal in America, whereas it is NOT illegal.  Why isn’t it illegal?  Well, it shouldn’t be illegal for the simple reason that “hate” is a highly subjective designation.  So, if you were to post a BLM sign, and I were to think that to be an example of racist hate speech against white people, it would not be illegal… or might it be illegal (see below)?  Our universities need to include serious freshman orientation courses on the law.  Instead, they seem only willing to include obligatory monkey-see, monkey-do diversity courses.  Again, keeping the populace ignorant serves a purpose:  more power to those in power.  

What precisely is free speech?  Well, I’m not really sure.  Is shouting the word FUCK legal, where I live?  Well, according to Commonwealth vs. Johnson (1994): “Mere use of obscenities in public does not make out crime of disorderly conduct.”  And yet that’s what I did in the Commonwealth and was arrested and incarcerated for a day, as well as “fined” $95 to retrieve my car, which was not at all illegally parked, but had been towed on the order of the arresting cop.  Three months later the judge dismissed the case, even though the prosecutor was clearly against that decision!  What comes into play is de facto versus de jura.   In other words, a cop, despite the legality and, who knows, he or she probably doesn’t even know it’s legal, might still arrest you, cuff you, put you behind bars, and force you to appear in the courthouse, while he or she makes double-time salary sitting in the courthouse audience.  For all details and documents regarding the de facto punishment for my entirely de jura (legal) exercise of free speech, see http://theamericandissident.org/orgs/walden_pond.html.  

Most citizens are likely quite ignorant as to what speech is or is not permitted.   This morning a headline in the Cape Cod Times grabbed my attention and provoked this brief essay:  “Yarmouth police seeks suspects who placed rope noose in tree.”  I read through the short article.  Sadly, the Times did not even mention anything at all regarding the legality or illegality of such an act.  In essence, not only the nation’s universities help maintain ignorance of the law, but the media helps do that too.  Now, those who want hate speech to be illegal can go about it in a roundabout way by arguing the speech to be an act of vandalism or littering, both of which are crimes (see my blog post on the University of Southern Maine:  wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/12/glenn-cummings.html).  In essence, place a BLM sign on someone else’s property and you could be arrested for littering and/or trespassing.  

The Times article noted that “Officers met with members of the neighborhood watch program who pointed out the noose hanging from a tree near the neighborhood association pond, the report said.  Members of the association believed the noose to be a racist threat, according to the report.”  I then had to do a little google research on the legality or illegality of “racist threat,” another highly subjective designation.  Apparently, back in 2008 there was again much brouhaha about a noose.  David L. Hudson, Jr., writing for SPLC, noted:

Many noose displays could qualify as true threats under the rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court's cross-burning decision in Virginia v. Black (2003), in which the high court ruled that a state could criminalize cross burning carried out "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons." The justices reasoned that cross burnings intended to intimidate constitute true threats unprotected by the First Amendment.  In other words, prosecutors must prove an intent to intimidate; the First Amendment will not allow intent to be presumed.

Well, Connecticut hate-crime law is a bit clearer:  “Any person who places a noose or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, and with intent to intimidate or harass any other person on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, shall be in violation.”  Unfortunately, I could find nothing for Massachusetts.  

Needless to say, it can be quite a dizzying experience attempting to obtain some clarity regarding “intimidation” and the law.  Each state has its own laws.  A few like Michigan actually have “ethnic intimidation” laws.  As far as my state, Massachusetts, is concerned:  “Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 13B makes it a crime to willfully or recklessly engage in certain acts in an attempt to persuade certain persons who are connected to criminal proceedings, including witnesses, jurors, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others.”  But evidently that has nothing to do with the noose as reported in the Times since it had nothing to do with a criminal proceeding.  But “intimidation” can be a form of harassment and the state has all kinds of laws with that regard (see https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-harassment-stalking-or-intentional-infliction-of-emotional).  

Lectric Law Library states, regarding “intimidation”

Means to intentionally say or do something which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to be fearful of bodily harm. It is not necessary to prove that the victim was actually frightened, and neither is it necessary to prove that the behavior of the person was so violent that it was likely to cause terror, panic or hysteria.

And if you think it can’t get any more dizzying, Legal Information Institute asserts:  

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.

So, what if I displayed a noose on my own property with the purpose of illustrating the intimidation vagueness problem?  What if a black person called the police or even stole the noose?  Would I/could I actually be arrested, fined, and even jailed?  Can a person be arrested for saying, I don’t like you because you are white?  Would/could such a statement be considered “ethnic intimidation”?  It is no wonder that the law has become a multi-billion dollar industry in America.  Do some lawyers actually specialize in “ethnic intimidation” law?  In any case, I am still left wondering whether or not it is a crime to hang a noose.  Unfortunately, I am still left in a vague cloud as to how precisely “intimidate” is legally defined.  After all, the term is highly subjective.  The lack of clarity of our laws serves not only the legal industry but also to keep the citizenry self-censoring and muzzled.