Sid Shniad

The following was sent to Global Free Press as a counter-editorial.  However, since the publisher has pneumonia, I am publishing it here.  Not sure how anyone can deny the egregious omissions in Sid Shniad's editorial.  

Ideology Must NOT Trump Reason and Fact

A Counterpoint Editorial

Somehow Sid Shniad’s pro-socialism, anti-capitalism, anti-Israel “68 Years of Struggle and Resistance for Peace, Justice and Freedom” editorial failed to mention that prior to those 68 years, the Palestinians were pro-Hitler and pro-Nazis.  Now, how could that fact have been omitted? Shniad seems adept at painting a black and white simplistic picture of Palestine as perfect, while Israel as perfectly evil.  Simplistic black and white depictions, as in capitalism is evil and socialism is good, should always be questioned and challenged.   To date, capitalist America, thanks to its First Amendment trumps perhaps every country regarding the basic human right of freedom of speech.  When I see dubious statements like so many of Shniad’s, I am compelled to respond.  Questions need to be posed.  For example, what preceded capitalism in the world?  Was the world much better off pre-capitalism?  Did people live longer?  Was there an equality of wealth?  Of course, the answers to those questions are NO.  Perhaps what preceded capitalism was a kind of pre-capitalism of trade and barter. 

As for socialism, some frightening examples exist, including Cuba, Venezuela, China, and the former USSR and Nazi Germany.  Because of those examples, I prefer to live under American capitalism, where I can freely express my opinions, more or less… but certainly more than in the country’s cited above… and more than in the socialist-leaning countries of the EU, where freedom of speech has become increasingly restricted.  “Rampaging capitalism” did not rampage across China and the USSR.  The former is still a communist country, ruled by a dictatorial elite, and tending more and more toward capitalism.  And why omit mention of the millions of human beings slaughtered under socialist regimes, both left and right-wing?  Capitalism, which Shniad fails egregiously to mention, did bring longer life spans and job opportunities for a greater number of people.  It brought some amazing inventions—it put men on the moon and amazing telescopes into space.  It brought cars, trains, televisions, radios, and computers.   Socialism did not do those things.  One problem socialism shares with capitalism is the inevitable wealthy elites.   The “impoverishment and degradation of many” is not the result of capitalism. Look at Cuba, Venezuela, and China for that.  Capitalism created jobs… and with jobs many people were able to lift themselves out of such impoverishment.  “Degradation” is a subjective term.  Capitalism, contrary to Shniad’s assertion, actually brought stability, though the communist/socialist dictatorships certainly did that too. 

                Now, how did the anti-capitalism rant (and I use that term because of the egregious omission of anything positive about capitalism) suddenly turn into an anti-Israel one?   If I were to agree with Shniad on one thing, it would be the creation of Israel in the Middle East.  Israel should have been created out of part of Germany, though again let’s not forget that the “Palestinians” and other Muslim groups were pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi and pro-incinerate the Jews.  Why does Shniad oddly omit such an important fact?  Apparently, the Palestinians today haven’t changed that much regarding kill the Jews.  I am by no means learned in Zionism, so will not comment much on it.  In fact, the term should have been clearly defined in the editorial. 

Contrary to Shniad’s assertion, the Islamic jihadis have in fact declared war on the West and Western capitalist values, including and especially freedom of speech, free inquiry, equality of women, gays, blacks, Jews, and the other groups mentioned.  Well, Jews were not mentioned, nor were apostates and kuffars like me.  How absurdly contradictory and egregiously taqiyya that statement on solidarity with the groups mentioned in the editorial!  Taquiyya, by the way, is Islamic approved prevarication used to sucker in or fool Westerners.  So, Sharia law is for such equality now?  Give me a break!

It is true the West is and has been battling away in the Middle East.  But contrary to journalist Chris Hedges, cited in the editorial, the Charlie Hebdo massacre WAS an attack on free speech and free inquiry and WAS rationalized by radical Islam.  How Hedges can state the contrary can only be explained by severe indoctrination.  How Shniad can agree with him can also only be explained by that.  The attackers were radicalized Islamists, like theBoston massacre jihadis, all fed nicely by the “Industrial West.”  They were not wretched and starving to death, as Shniad aberrantly implies.  Their attack was not one of “nihilistic fury,” but rather one of radical Islam paid for by Al-Qaeda.  Why was that fact omitted?  Hedges and Shniad are not interested in the truth or facts, but rather only in pushing some odd religion-of-peace narrative, much like Obama. 

Charb, editor of Charlie Hebdo was on Al-Qaeda’s Most Wanted List!  How did Shniad rationalize omitting such an important fact?  Why was he on that list?  Well, I’ll tell you why.  Charb was on that list because of the cartoons that mocked Muhammad.  How can Hedges and Shniad both deny such an egregious fact?  Was Charb some ultra-wealthy representative of the capitalist state?  Of course not!  He was a self-avowed socialist, though with anarchistic inclinations and a particular appreciation of freedom of speech!!!  In fact, most if not all the slaughtered cartoonists were socialists!  How can one take someone like Shniad seriously, when such facts are  purposefully omitted.  Finally, Shniad leaves out certain facts about Israel, including that it is the only Democracy in the Middle East and that its parliament contains Muslim members.  Where else in the Middle East might such a situation of co-existence between Jews and Muslims occur?  No where!  Why does Shniad omit mention of the butchery committed in the Middle East against Catholics? 

Jeanmarie Fraser and Tim Gerolami

For a full written account of "An Incident at Wilkens Library" with oddball though real dialogue, check out http://www.globalfreepress.org/editorials/topics/free-speech.  Somehow I managed to get the Cape Cod Community College student newspaper, The Main Sheet, to actually publish a letter to the editor on the incident.  Its editor should be congratulated. There is hope!  The published letter is the following: 

To the Editor, The Main Sheet, Cape Cod Community College, Barnstable, MA:
Perhaps the prime concern of humanities professors (English, journalism, etc.) ought to be rousing student interest in democracy and, in particular, the First Amendment and vigorous debate, especially regarding controversial thoughts and ideas.  Yet that concern seems all but inexistent, buried by the overwhelming focus today on multiculturalism and diversity.  
Calling the police on a man quietly holding a sign in the library is one sure way to discourage students and others from exercising their First Amendment rights.  That’s what happened to me a few weeks ago at Wilkens Library.  “Celebrate the Anniversary of the Bill of Rights, Not Banned Books Week” was my sign.   Read the full account of what happened: www.globalfreepress.org/editorials/topics/free-speech.  Perhaps CCCC writing and journalism instructors ought to expose students to the account and emphasize in their classes that, for writers, Freedom of Speech is of prime importance.  Without it, jail cells, torture chambers, firing squads, and/or exile await them.  In fact, I’d be happy to speak to students on this very topic and have even prepared a detailed syllabus with its regard.  Might there be an interested professor?  If so, contact me.  I don’t bite or make threats.  Hell, I live and publish here in your very community and even possess a doctoral degree. 
Sadly, only about one in 30 CCCC students expressed interest in my sign.   But not even one of the English or journalism professors I’d contacted cared what happened at Wilkens.  Not one of them cared about the refusal of both the Cape Cod Times and Barnstable Patriot to report on my being permanently trespassed without warning or due process from Sturgis Library in Barnstable.  Not one library director of the Clams Library System of Cape Cod, which includes Wilkens, would even respond to my demand for due process.  Not one CCCC professor cared that The American Dissident, a 501 c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence, had essentially been banned by those library directors from the System.  Why do Dean Jeanmarie Fraser and Tim Gerolami, and professors Sarah Polito, Bruce Riley, Kathleen Soderstrom, Michael Olendzenski, Patricia McGraw, James Kershner, Dianne Gregory, John French, Christine Esperson, Bill Berry, Patricia Allen, and Dean Debower not care?  And why don’t the local politicians (Tom Lynch, Brian Mannal, Cleon Turner, Ann Canedy, etc.) care?  Is commerce all that concerns them?  And what about the ACLUM and PEN New England?
Sadly, CCCC police officers are not educated regarding citizen rights.  The police supervisor, who confronted me, explicitly and angrily ordered me to stop recording him.  Well, I obeyed, but then only later discovered citizens have “a specific First Amendment right to record police officers,” according to two major court decisions (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and the 7th Circuit Court). 
It is mind-boggling the police were called in the first place because both Dean Fraser and Mr. Gerolami somehow determined that holding a sign silently was a “confrontational” activity and that because students were “looking” at the activity, it somehow “disrupted the flow of the education system.”  Wow.  CCCC deans and faculty need to be educated as to the First Amendment.  They clearly are not.  Court cases have sided over and again with Justice William O. Douglas’ view that “The function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it invites a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it passes for acceptance of an idea.”  Yet the deans and faculty do not seem to care about this.   Does President John L. Cox care?  Perhaps not.
Moreover, “disrupting the flow of the education system” is far too vague a term to overrule the right to exercise free speech at a public institution.  Such a term needs to be carefully defined and narrowly limited or it will accord administrators the power of unchecked censors.    Holding a sign for a mere 10 minutes, not getting in anyone’s face, not threatening anyone, and not provoking people to violence is a legal activity in America.  So, why is it a questionable one at CCCC? 
Finally, student newspapers ought to devote a page or even a small corner of a page to uncomfortable criticism of the particular college or university housing it.  Students need to be encouraged to question and challenge all things, especially those that seem to enjoy protected status. 
Students ought to be encouraged to ask themselves what they think they shouldn’t write or speak about, even make a list of such taboos and why they seem to be taboos.  If such taboos serve to avoid offending others and hide uncomfortable truths or opinions, then they need to be broken.  Citizens need to build spine and not be so easily offended.  Democracy depends on that.  Anonymous authorship ought to be fully discouraged. 
Now, the probability this letter will change absolutely nothing is very high.  So, why bother writing it?  Ego?   Well, surely, those criticized in it would a-men to that.  But I’d argue that visceral passion for the freedom to speak, opine, and write is the principle reason.  If being egocentric means having such a passion, then fine.  I’d much rather be that than a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil careerist.   The former Soviet Union was loaded with those… and today so is the USA.  The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Do not seek to diminish that right with your own spinelessness, biases and inane excuses, as in “disrupts the flow of the educational system.”
G. Tod Slone, Ed., The American Dissident
Barnstable, MA

Lucy Loomis

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

The recently acquired documents inspired the following poem.

 

Beware of Marm

With pleasure I will torpedo the ark.

—Henrik Ibsen, “An Enemy of the People”

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

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

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

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

when I was working in a room alone and quietly,

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

to the trustees who’d hired her:

Because of his behavior when the police were here they almost

                                                                                                  arrested him.

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

in the almost-arrested blotter of the local newspaper. 

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

she’d written clinically, though without PhD.

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

his voice viscerally

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

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

she decided as judge, jury, and henchbitch. 

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

imminent danger to staff and public safety, though no gun

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

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

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

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

she noted, proud of her successful orchestration.

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

since that notorious decree to permanently trespass me,

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

…………………………………………………………….

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