Paul Pronovost and Noah Hoffenberg

Celebrate World Press Freedom Day… by Decrying Local Press Hypocrites

For reason, the US has sunken to #49 on the World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters without Borders.  The lack of a truly free press in America and is the result of a Faustian deal made by far too many journalists.  That deal mandates placing career above bold truth telling.  Far too many journalists are in cahoots with the chambers of commerce and advertizers and pillars of the community and political hacks, both local and national. 

The local press hypocrites I decry are editors Paul Pronovost of the Cape Cod Times and Noah Hoffenberg of the Barnstable Patriot because issues of freedom of expression are not as important to them as shielding community pillars like Lucy Loomis who permanently banned me, my ideas, and the ideas of those whom I publish from my very neighborhood library without possibility of due process.  Both Pronovost and Hoffenberg refuse to publish anything regarding that egregious curtailment of freedom of expression.  

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.

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.

Eleanor Claus

Women in Power

Playing the He-Makes-Me-Feel-Uncomfortable Card

The idea that there is a conflict between free speech and the academic community fundamentally misunderstands both the goals of higher education and the nature and role of free speech.

—George Orwell

Orwell, of course, made some wonderful observations.  The one above is perhaps one of his best and clearly could equally apply to libraries and library directors. 

It is my observation, from several decades of knockng on the doors of public libraries, that public library directors are almost always female, behave as gatekeepers prohibiting certain viewpoints, especially when critical of public librarian behavior, as well as that of the local pillars of the community.  They generally do not celebrate the First Amendment, though do perform little charades during Banned Books Week.  Not all librarians, of course, but certainly the very large majority of them!  And the staff at the American Library Association are as bad as the worst. 

The above cartoon was drawn a year and a half ago regarding Lucy Loomis’ order that I cease leaving flyers at Sturgis Library and not talk to speak to staff about that.  Realizing Loomis could probably no-trespass me from the library if I did not obey the command, I decided to obey it.  I needed and still need the library for the internet.  My job demands it.  So, now I must travel further for it.  Loomis has punished me—the school marm punishing the little refractory school boy.  The marm's mentality is:  If you criticize me, I'll punish you!  Marms seem to be crying "bully," as in wolf, right and left today, then behaving as bullies themselves whenever their power might be threatened.  Loomis' power was threatened because I underscored her flawed sense of reasoning and resultant hypocrisy.  Therefore, she bullied me with the help of three cops. 

And many would consider a loner like me as a little refractory school boy because of my passion for the First Amendment and my taking a stand now and then, as I did with Loomis and her little fascist fiefdom known as Sturgis Library.  And indeed, grownups don’t protest, they conform.   Interestingly, one of the library trustees, Santos, termed my protest as “intellectual masturbation.”  With that regard, Tim Bearly noted with unusual perspicacity: 

I suppose to him, questioning and challenging in public, is essentially the same as masturbating in public… you shouldn't do it. Do your wanking at home by yourself, do your thinking at home by yourself. These acts are considered equally disgusting to him.

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

-Barnstable Town Manager Thomas K. Lynch = NO RESPONSE

-Eleanor Claus (friend of Loomis), President of the Town Library Committee = NO RESPONSE

                                -American Library Association = NO RESPONSE

-Cape Cod Times = NO RESPONSE

-First Amendment expert, Harvey Silverglate = referred me to the ACLUM

-ACLUM = NO RESPONSE

-Police Station = paid 50 cents for the police report, which only stated:  “harassment, male” (see below)

Since the police incident, I have been obsessing over what occurred.  Loomis has made me feel sincerely depressed, uh, “uncomfortable.” I sketched another cartoon with her fascistic regard, which will be in the current issue of The American Dissident due to be distributed in a month.  If citizens do not take a stand vis-à-vis the bugeoning mob of little caesars in their midst, Freedom of Speech and Due Process will cease to exist in America. 

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