Wow. Ginny is at it again! She has an editorial in the paper today that links to a timeline of her version of events (edited by her and Dan Kleinman) that includes this gem:
"Most importantly, this timeline will also confirm the covert involvement of national organizations to oppress small communities, undermine community standards and push the liberal agenda of the American Library Association."
Random thoughts.
1) Ginny, using the word "covert" makes you sound like a 9/11 Truther. Think about that for a second please. There is nothing "covert" about these emails back and forth you trot out as some type of evidence of a scandal. Apparently "covert" simply means "done without Ginny's consent".
2) That gem up there was originally prominently displayed on the sidebar of her timeline website this morning. It has since been removed by Dan Kleinman because he probably also realized it made Ginny sound like a 9/11 Truther. Dan, you are obviously a smart guy. Why do you continue to tie yourself to Ginny?
3) The top of the timeline reads "Anyone with knowledge may help on this page-just send us a request for access. Pages editors include Ginny Maziarka and Dan Kleinman. More are welcome. " Really Ginny? I'd love to have a crack at editing it! I promise not to try and erase it form the history books, like you tried to do at Wikipedia.
4) Ginny, do you really think anyone other than you, Dan and Mary are going to read all this?
I may take a crack at reading through all this. I may not. Depends on if I need to punish myself for not going on a run later today.
**UPDATE** You know, the more I think about it, I think the paper should give Ginny a regular column alongside Owen and Mark. The most effective way for Ginny to lose what little support she has left is for her to open her mouth on a regular basis to as big an audience as possible.
There needs to be letters to the editor or better yet an editorial that refutes the crap that Ginny puts out there.
ReplyDeleteI have friends that live in Australia that actually e-mailed me to tell me that West Bend WI made it into their news. We are officially an international embarassment. thanks Ginny.
The time line does not include that gem. Yes, I removed it. Ginny and I had already agreed to remove all such language. I know she was working on the subpages recently, but it must have slipped her attention on the main page and her editorial published quickly so we were short on time to finalize the time line. So as soon as I saw it, I took it off immediately. I informed Ginny and she agreed absolutely.
ReplyDeletePlease do not hold this lapse against us. Understand this was a very long term project and we are doing our best to make it opinion free.
"Dan, you are obviously a smart guy. Why do you continue to tie yourself to Ginny?" I am not tied to Ginny.
I support Ginny when her interests coincide with mine. For example, she wishes to have the community decide whether or not to use Internet filters in the public library after the community is fully informed about their usefulness and legality. For example, see Ginny's recent post: Greensboro City Attorney Gives Green Light to Block Internet Porn at Library. Even I haven't blogged on that one yet, but I will. As it stands now, the community has gotten significant misinformation directly from personal visits by the ALA.
Further, the ALA has attacked me personally in West Bend and in public. Why would I not be involved in West Bend?
Lastly, partly based on my involvement in West Bend, a speaker at a recent ALA annual meeting announced that I am changing the library profession. See: SafeLibraries Changing Library Profession According to Speaker at ALA 2010 Annual Conference; SafeLibraries Welcomes Media Requests for ALA Balance.
So I'll be involved with Ginny and West Bend for quite a while.
Oh, I almost forgot. Maria Hanrahan got a $1000 pay-off from the ALA and no one except a select few have yet been informed. Did you know that? "We got good news on Friday that West Bend Parents for Free Speech received a grant of $1000 for our expenses from the Freedom to Read Foundation."
It's not Ginny who is having a truther problem.
"It has since been removed by Dan Kleinman...." How did you know I was the one who removed it? That information is not available publicly on the web site.
ReplyDeleteHello Dan! NIce to see you here. I will happily respond to your first comment later today after I run some errands, but as far as your second comment... really? Do you not look at your own page? Right there on the right, under "Recent Activity" it says "SideBar, edited by Dan Kleinman".
ReplyDeleteSheesh.
Oops! Well, that's embarrassing!
ReplyDeleteI'll have to agree with you. Sheesh!
Actually, Dan, I never received $1000 from the ALA/Freedom to Read Foundation, although this amount was allotted to West Bend Parents for Free Speech in the form of a grant. The way it was set up, WBPFFS could supply receipts to the Freedom to Read Foundation, which held the grant on our behalf, to be reimbursed for expenses related to the book challenge. One member of WBPFFS was reimbursed for an Open Records Request that cost about $180, if I remember correctly. This search concerned copies of the complaint form completed by Ginny Maziarka and copies of emails or other transcriptions of discussions of the book challenge sent/received/made by members of the West Bend Common Council.
ReplyDeleteWhile I certainly would like to have been the recipient of $1000 to use at my leisure as your comments and Ginny's "bribe" statement suggest, this did not happen. In fact, I was never reimbursed by any organization for any of my expenses, which really only consisted of paper and ink from using my computer to print petitions and other materials. You'll note that in the email (in which I tell Michael Tyree about the grant) linked to your "Maria Hanrahan got a payoff from the ALA" comment, I also mention that I donated a $30 room deposit I made (for use of the a library room for our petition signing) to the summer reading program. The supplies for signs used in public events was also donated by other members of WBPFFS.
I would think that a lawyer such as yourself would be more careful than to publicly state someone received a "payoff" when the email you submit as your "proof" indicates no such thing. It says WBPFFS received a grant, not that I received any payment. WBPFFS as a whole never received any money from the ALA, and, in fact, when a few individuals contacted me personally by phone or email and wanted to make donations to our cause, I told them that members of WBPFFS were personally covering the expenses, which had been minor to that point, and that they should make a donation to the library instead. It wasn't until the large expense of the ORR that requesting reimbursement became necessary.
I became involved in the book challenge solely because I was and always have been an avid library user, and I wanted to protect the right for library patrons to choose what material is right for themselves and their families. To suggest that I did it for a "payoff" is offensive, but I am quite used to being offended to what you and Ms. Maziarka say and write.
Regarding this whole "covert" business:
ReplyDeleteSo any email Ginny wasn't cc'd on now qualifies as "covert" communications? How is a library working with the American Library Association "covert"? Ginny has constantly made an issue of outside parties mucking around in the business of West Bend taxpayers, yet she sees her consulting with you (who live in New Jersey I believe) on a regular basis as totally OK. Have you ever even been to West Bend, Dan? Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem at all with you helping her, but for her to then call anyone from outside West Bend helping those not interested in labeling and moving books around as "covertly" interfering is just plain silly. I don't know what you take the people of West Bend for, but they are not stupid. Ginny's editorial reads like the writing of a paranoid sore loser who can't let go of this issue even a year after everyone else has moved on.
"I am not tied to Ginny":
If you believe that, then OK. I'd argue that you aren't giving and getting in equal amounts in your relationship, but if you feel that you are and working with her is good for your reputation, fine.
"Oh, I almost forgot. Maria Hanrahan got a $1000 pay-off from the ALA and no one except a select few have yet been informed. Did you know that?"
Wow, now YOU sound like 9/11 Truther... C'mon Dan, you are better than this. "Pay-off"? Really? A "pay-off", or "bribe" as Ginny called it, is money or a gift that ALTERS the behavior of the recipient. Are you saying Maria was going to help Ginny and WBC4SL, but the ALA gave her $1,000 to oppose Ginny? A $1,000 stipend for expenses is hardly a "pay-off" or "bribe". (Hey Ginny, it really took balls to say Maria took a bribe! That's probably what Jesus would have done too, right?)
"No one except for a select few have yet been informed"?
Are you now using the standard that anything you or Ginny weren't told about is a scandal-worthy secret? Does the same standard apply to you and Ginny? Is the email forwarded to me, assuming it is real, that you sent to CafePress on Ginny's behalf that "only a select few" have seen a scandal starter as well?
Regardless of everything above... it seems after reading Ginny's editorial and skimming the timeline you both created that your new position going forward is: "We would have succeeded with our book challenge if only for the covert actions of the ALA”. Do I have that right? Where do you plan on going from here?
Maria:
ReplyDeleteWhere had you, the ALA, or the library previously disclosed this? Will you now provide additional information on this grant?
Miss West Bend:
"Covert" was removed, and for a reason. I said above, "Please do not hold this lapse against us." You have, however. At a minimum, that's not fair.
As to "pay-off," you have ascribed a negative connotative to the word, That's your assignation, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth. And making fun of Jesus? Really, it's disgraceful and disrespectful.
As to your claim of a "scandal-worthy secret," I am not sure what you are talking about. Are you practicing projection? And what email did I send to CafePress?
As I said previously, the "covert" idea was removed. So your claim about the book challenge is false. Your continuing to dwell on the "covert" theme is bad faith. It also evidences that you have no legitimate arguments on substantive issues.
I had not disclosed the info about the grant anywhere publicly, and why do you think I should have? I don't imagine the ALA/Freedom to Read Foundation publicly announces every grant they make, and certainly the library had no business announcing it, because the grant was not made to them.
ReplyDeleteI disclosed the information to a select few members of the WBPFFS, because again, up until the ORR, no one had taken on any expenses other than printer ink, making a few photocopies, etc. I did not announce the grant publicly because it was a non-issue; up until the ORR, we (members of WBPFFS) were not spending money on newspaper ads, radio spots, or high quantities of photocopies of flyers or other material. Members spent a few dollars here and there, but did it on a donation basis.
West Bend Parents for Free Speech never incorporated as an official organization or collected monies for our efforts in the book challenge, and no bank account was never opened.
I can't give you any additional info on the grant other than what I've told you; the grant was held in trust by the Freedom to Read Foundation. I was told we could submit receipts for expenses to them for reimbursement, and approx. $180 for the ORR was the only expense WBPFFS requested reimbursement for.
Certainly not the "bribe" or "payoff" you and Ginny insinuate.
Oh Dan, where to begin? You removed the "covert" paragraph from your site, but it was printed in the Washington County Daily News which many, many, many more people saw than will ever to see your timeline. Ginny said it... along with accusing Mary of taking a bribe, so I'm free to talk about it. Let Ginny come here and defend her views. This is what I meant by you guys aren't giving and getting in equal amounts in your relationship.... Ginny spews paranoia and you are left to defend her positions since she won't engage in conversation with anyone who disagrees with her.
ReplyDeleteApparently you are unaware of what is on your own timeline website and of what was printed in the local newspaper. I'd ask you to please read them both before you comment further. The Washington County Daily News is available online if you can't find a copy near your house in New Jersey.
Oh stop. I was not "making fun of Jesus". I was pointing out that accusing someone of taking a bribe in the local paper wasn't a very Christ-like thing to do.
The fact that you claim amnesia in regards to the email you sent on Ginny's behalf to CafePress just confirms that you are only playing games here. Check your "sent items" folder and you will find it.
What on earth ARE the substantive issues here? I must admit I have no idea what they are any more. This all started about books with gay characters in them, then it was about "porn" in the library, now it's about... revenge against those who disagreed with you? If you can tell me what the current issues are I'd really appreciate it.
Ok- gotta ask. What is the cafe press email? Maria, did you send a letter to the newspaper debunking the "bribe" bs? I don't get the newspaper over here, ( and I cant find it online?) but Ginny should not be allowed to accuse you of something that is blatantly untrue. Again.
ReplyDeleteBeesBess - there is a link in the first line of this post to the editorial Ginny had printed in the paper... so check it out.
ReplyDeleteAbout a year ago there was briefly a store at CafePress.com that was selling Ginny merchandise. I was forwarded an email by the person who I assume did the store. The email was from Dan to CafePress basically freaking out about the store on Ginny's behalf. It's pretty funny. Maybe someday I'll publish my own timeline of this incident, including the response by CafePress which was also sent to me. It was all very covert dontcha know... and the public really ought to be made aware of it :)
The time line is intended to be as factual as possible. Outside the time line, Ginny or anyone is entitled to say anything she wishes.
ReplyDeleteI just read Ginny's article and I see the word. I also read Maria's responses above: "I had not disclosed the info about the grant anywhere publicly, and why do you think I should have?"
Ginny said "covert." The facts are Maria unapologetically did "not disclose" the grant for over a year and a quarter until Ginny disclosed it and Maria felt the need to excuse her own silence. What's not covert about that?
And if the ALA does provide grants as part of its function and does so legally, but does so in a manner that is otherwise hidden, what's not covert about that? Covert does not imply illegal.
Notice: I was a former member of the FTRF, paid dues, and was aware my money may go to such causes because that's the FTRF mission, and I did not complain. I am not complaining now. But I am certainly entitled to point it out now that, at least in West Bend, it is no longer a secret. The ALA, like Maria, should consider revealing the existence of such grants, only nationwide in the ALA's case.
Dan. Really? Who was she supposed to disclose it to? Is everyone now required to tell you and Ginny what we do 24/7? Who cares anyway? You can't be implying that Ginny lost the challenge based on a $180 difference in the size of her war chest, are you?
ReplyDeleteCan you please cc me on all future emails between you and Ginny? Because you know, you have to disclose everything to everyone.
Do you not see how silly this has all become?
Dan, as Miss West Bend asks, who was I supposed to disclose this info to, and where? You'll note the date of the email was 5/12/09, and I indicated that I learned of the grant on the previous Friday, which would have been May 8th. The library board public meeting happened on June 2nd. What would have been the point of disclosing the information about the grant? As of that point in time, all of our expenses had been small and were covered by individuals involved in West Bend Parents for Free Speech, and there were no plans for changing that. In fact, there would have been precious little time in which to put that grant to use, had we decided to do so, with the vote only about 2 weeks away. The ORR made on behalf of WBPFFS was not made until after the library board meeting of June 2nd, and was related to the selection of replacement library board candidates and emails received by/sent by the Common Council about the library challenge.
ReplyDeleteWhile WBCFSL did countless ORRs, had radio spots, at least one print ad, and distributed many copies of flyers and petitions, WBPFFS did not have any of those expenses. Yet I don't see you asking the Maziarkas to disclose any financial assistance they may have received. Perhaps you are already well aware of who they received money from.
As Miss West Bend asks, do you realize how silly this is? Do you honestly believe that I should have, AFTER the library board meeting and the matter of the book challenge was settled, written a note to the Daily News to say, "WBPFFS received a grant of $1000, but we didn't actually get a $1000. One of our members was reimbursed about $180 for an Open Records Request fee"???
For the record, I'm not excusing my silence, I am defending myself against accusations of receiving a "bribe" or "payoff." You point out that Ginny discloses this "covert" info almost a year and a quarter after the library challenge.....and what would the point of that be, exactly? Are we to believe that she obtained this info through a recent ORR, or is it more likely that she is now grasping at straws to stir things up again?
You both say it is "silly" because you want it to go away.
ReplyDeleteHow many politicians get busted, not for doing something, but for covering it up afterwards?
Maria, just weeks after receiving the grant, you said, "My arguments are based on fact and on the 5 points of the WBCFSL petition, and they are not influenced by outside sources such as the ALA or NCAC."
Maria, would you please explain that?
We both say it's silly Dan, because it is over a year later and you and Ginny can't seem to let go.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't respond to my question - will you please hold yourselves to the same standard you expect Maria to abide by and start ccing me on all your emails?
Dan, I already explained my issues with the 5 points of Ginny's petition, in a previous comment to the same blog post, on your own blog, as the comment that you quoted above. Perhaps you should read your own blog more carefully. See here and here.
ReplyDeleteI also discussed my problems with Ginny's petition in a blog post on the WBPFFS site here.
And as far as not being influenced by outside sources, while I was familiar with the existence of the ALA, it's not something I really gave much thought to until this book challenge. And if you follow the timeline that you and Ginny so painstakingly completed, you'll note that I was interviewed, a week after Ginny, on WBKV, a local radio station, on March 23rd, 2009. I created the WBPFFS website several days prior to the interview. Ginny started her petition on March 26th and I started mine a few days later. I learned of the Freedom to Read Foundation grant on May 8th, well into my involvement in the book challenge. Obviously, I became involved in the book challenge because of my reaction and opposition to Ginny Maziarka's complaint, and that was the reason I remained involved. I appreciate the mission of organizations such as the ALA, the NCAC, and ABFFE, but I'm not influenced by them. I was and always will be influenced by my right as a public library patron and as a parent to determine what reading material is right for me and for my children, and I will continue to be vocal and vigilant about protecting that right.
I've been watching this fracas from a distance and now feel the need to weigh in. I don't know much about Dan Kleinman's Safe Libraries group, but I have to post this question. How much financial support did Ginny et al receive from Safe Libraries through the library fiasco? And isn't Maziarka the chair of the Washington County chapter of the Eagle Forum? Did she receive financial assistance from them through the library hoopla (which, by the way, she lost)? Also, isn't Ginny a mouthpiece for Julaine Apling, the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Family Council (do a little research on Julaine - you might be surprised what you'll find in her closet)? The Wisconsin Family Council floats cash to worthy causes (sic) and most certainly, they've touted Ginny's work on the library issue. So Mr. Kleinman, be transparent and disclose financial support you and Ginny have received throughout the library carnival. Remember, when you point your finger, you've got three big ones pointing right back at you.
ReplyDeleteWell, looky here. I did some research at the ALA website and searched my name. One of the results was mention in an issue of the Freedom to Read Foundation News, Vol. 34, No. 2 dated June 2009. An article about the book challenge begins on page 7, and the last paragraph of the article mentions the fact that I founded West Bend Parents for Free Speech and that "The Freedom to Read Foundation Trustees agreed to make a grant to that organization in support of its efforts to ensure open access to information in the West Bend library." While the FTRF News is published and issued quarterly to members of the FTRF, the archives are readily available online to anyone.
ReplyDeleteCertainly not covert, certainly not undercover, and quickly found with a search of my name at the ALA website. Poor Ginny could have saved herself some grief and revealed this startling news more than a year ago, had she merely searched the ALA website!!! But, of course, she wouldn't be caught dead searching the subversive ALA website.
So if I, or the ALA, was covert in our alleged coverup of the grant, we clearly failed. But alas, if you would cast Jennifer Garner, former portrayer of CIA agent Sydney Bristow on Alias, as me for the story of my life, I'd be more grateful!
Oh Snap!
ReplyDeleteMaria, would you please summarize how the ALA was involved in your community? Off the top of my head, it gave out grants, make several personal visits, spoke out at library board meetings, protested at public events, provided the library with significant assistance, provided you with significant assistance, had you and others attend an ALA meeting then give a speech on the topic, etc. In the spirit of openness, would you please disclose additional means by which the ALA supported you personally, your organization, other members of your organization, your library, and your government? Regarding yourself, will you detail the specific assistance the ALA provided?
ReplyDeleteWas it a shock to you to see your email to Tyree about the ALA grant finally made public?
Have you learned to be more open about things or to be more closed about things?
Do you feel that your not revealing the information for all this time that you have finally revealed may give the appearance of impropriety?
Have you been in contact with the ALA recently as a result of this public release of the financial ties with the ALA, and would you be willing to make those contacts public? Has the ALA contacted you?
Is there anything else you wish to reveal now before it is revealed by other means and you again feel the need to explain it away?
Thank you.
By the way, will you please ask your supporters not to make defamatory comments about me or otherwise attack the messenger? I know you say on your own blog, "West Bend Parents for Free Speech does not endorse personal attacks on anyone, and requires all participants to act in a professional, courteous manner." Will you ask your supporters and the blog host here at "Fear and Loathing in West Bend" to abide by the same rules as your own blog?
Thanks again.
ALA involvement:
ReplyDeleteGrants = 1 in the amount of $1000, $180 used
Personal visits = 2 (to the May 2009 Read In organized by Jake Jurss, and to the library board meeting of June 2nd)
Significant assistance to library = ? (I'm not employed with the library, so I can't address that)
Significant assistance to me personally = none, other than thanking me for my role in the book challenge and providing some book marks and buttons, etc. to the general public at the Read In
Again, I cannot address any specific assistance the ALA/OIF provided to the library or the local government, as I am not employed by either. They did not provide specific assistance to WBPFFS or to me personally.
It was not a shock to see my email to Michael made public, since I am fully aware of Ginny's seemingly manic interest in ORRs. Let's just say that if I truly intended to be "covert" or hide the news about the grant, I wouldn't have sent the info in an email to a city employee at their work address.
If anyone wants to think I was improper for not discussing the nonissue of a grant that was "used" (after the library board's vote!) to the tune of less than 6%, they can go ahead.
I have not been in contact with the ALA in regards to any library issues since about the time of my visit to the convention last year. No, wait, OIF Director Barbara Jones came to the December dinner in which West Bend Parents/Activists for Free Speech were honored and named recipients of the William Gorham Rice Civil Libertarians of the Year award. I had not previously met her, and we exchanged pleasantries. I have had contact with Angela Maycock on a personal level; not on library issues, but because I think she's a rockin' chick!
Is there anything else you wish to reveal now before it is revealed by other means and you again feel the need to explain it away?
Yes. I'm lactose-intolerant.
As far as the idea of personal attacks against you, Dan, when I see one, I'll call the person out. But you can't keep screaming "personal attack" when someone uses your words against you, is wittier than you, or proves one of your accusations is false.
I gave you more credit than I should have. After my last post with the link to the very public notice of my "secret" grant, I expected some sort of apology, some sort of acknowledgment that you were off-base. I won't hold my breath.
The lactose-intolerant comment was funny.
ReplyDeleteAs to the "very public notice," how come you did not explain things in response to that "very public notice" like you are now?
Let me ask you this. Internet filters and bandwidth shapers are effective and legal for filtering public library Internet computers. Would you be willing to allow Internet filters if the circumstances warranted? Why or why not?
Is it ever appropriate to remove a book from a public library? Why or why not?
Is material ever inappropriate for children? Why or why not?
On another topic, I have been involved in a lot of library issues nationwide. Only in the West Bend matter do I see so the same few people being so mean and nasty, then carry on their campaigns nationwide. Why might that be? For example, someone listed a domain name in Ginny's name and uses it to harass her. Do you think that is funny? Will you call for that person to turn over the domain name to Ginny?
I'd hardly call a story from "The Onion" harassing.
ReplyDeleteI would call accusing someone of taking a bribe in the local newspaper harassment though.
I have to say I'm amazed Maria is actually answering all your stupid questions - if only Ginny was that open.
What Onion story?
ReplyDeleteAs to the "very public notice," how come you did not explain things in response to that "very public notice" like you are now? Dan, in my first comments to you, I did not know the FTRF had announced the grant in the newsletter. You'll note I said that I doubted the ALA/FTRF disclosed every grant that they made. Upon pondering it, I figured the little WBPFFS grant was mentioned somewhere, and searched the ALA site.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to address the internet filters question, because it wasn't a real component to Ginny's complaint. It's not mentioned in her filed papers (Reconsideration of Materials form and accompanying letter) concerning her book challenge (started on 2/3/09); it is not part of her complaint. It is only at the point of the creation of her petition on 3/26/09 that Ginny brings internet filters into the discussion. Again, her original (and only) Reconsideration form doesn't mention it.
Is it ever appropriate to remove a book from a public library? My tongue in cheek response is, yes, when you have a library card and you have checked the book out! Perhaps books can be removed if they need to be repaired or are damaged beyond repair.
Is material ever inappropriate for children? Why or why not? Everyone has their own idea of what material is inappropriate for children, in books, movies, on TV, video games, etc. What a parent may classify as inappropriate today may be perfectly fine with them a year or two from now. You're expecting me to say that a certain type of literature or a certain book is inappropriate for all people under age 18? Not going to happen. And my involvement in this whole debate was for the very reason that Ginny's challenge asked the library to remove/move/classify books as being inappropriate for young adults based on her personal opinion. She was asked countless times how her proposed petition points would be put into practice; who would determine which books were "too explicit"? As I have always said, parents are the only ones who have the right to determine which books are appropriate for their kids. Ginny can decide for her kids and I will decide for mine.
Finally, I don't know what you mean about the "same few people" being "so mean and nasty" and carrying on campaigns nationwide....? You have a clear double standard here. Where was your outrage when Ginny called me the "Woman (who) Says Porn is OK for Kids"? Why don't you chastise Ginny for suggesting I took a "bribe," which indicates I became involved in this debate for some reason other than my personal convictions (never mind the fact that this supposed bribe came about 2/3 into my involvement in the challenge.) Why is it OK for Ginny to campaign against a library employee and suggest she has an agenda or is "targeting the youth of our community" just by "Liking" people or groups on Facebook? Do you really believe that our YA librarian is targeting the youth because she likes Ellen DeGeneres and the guy who played Doogie Howser?! (This is some of Ginny's "proof" of an agenda...."Draw your own conclusions. The evidence is clear.") The Maziarka domain goes to a satirical story in the Onion, hardly what I would consider harrassment. No, I would not call for the person who owns that domain to turn it over to Ginny.
Maria, about the Internet filtering issue. Ginny may raise that issue formally, for what I believe will be the first time other than passing references. So even though Ginny did not mention it, let's set that aside. Let's make an effort to address an issue that is a real issue. Internet filters and bandwidth shapers are effective and legal for filtering public library Internet computers. Would you be willing to allow Internet filters if the circumstances warranted? Why or why not? What circumstances might warrant filters?
ReplyDeleteMaria, I am not trying to trick you by asking about the filters. I do not even have direct knowledge of the library involved. I am all ears and willing to listen to what you have to say. As to Ginny, we never discussed filters in detail so I do not even know what she has in mind. So please, answer the question if you don't mind. I know we are all busy so I don't want to volunteer you for anything.
Dan, I think I've patiently answered enough of your questions, and I really don't know enough about Internet filters and how they work to really comment. In order to do so, I'd need to research how it could/might make a difference in Internet use in West Bend. To my knowledge, it is a non-issue and the current Internet usage policy is working just fine. I don't use the Internet computers at the library and neither do my children, so it is really beyond the scope of my awareness.
ReplyDeleteI'd really love it if you answered MY previous questions, however, concerning Ginny's behavior and it's proximity to harassment, libel, and Facebook stalking. And note, dear readers, I am still waiting for that apology from Mr. Kleinman.....
Maria, you have been rather open. In respoect of that I'll say more than I might otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall, Ginny did something even I criticized her for. On her blog, if I recall. I think she apologized to the person and retracted her statement as a result. Might it have been about Professor Peterson? But it was a while back so I do not remember, and I tried to find it.
I'll say what is obvious anyway, and that is Ginny's style of addressing issues is totally different than mine. From what I can tell of others in the area, it seems you are all perfect for each other. I would never make the statements some of you make, including Ginny. Frankly, it's shocking to sit on the outside and see the nastiness that flies back and forth in West Bend. I promise you I do not see this kind of activity in any other community and I've been doing this for many years. I frankly do not see the benefit people get by throwing mud and making flat out false claims knowingly.
As to an apology, I will admit I missed that ALA article you found. I am happy and quite impressed you found it. I found another ALA article that provided lots of details on the incident but left out the grant. The ALA web presence is not easy to navigate, e.g., a recent rewrite broke all existing links but top level ones.
Cool?
Maria, someone on my blog just responded, calling you out for your usual spin cycle in your comments, this time on my post about the school media specialist and the menage a trois type material she purposefully lets kids read. It's a kick! I suppose outside of West Bend, people are not yet worn down by your efforts at attacking messengers instead of issues. Perhaps you can find a local blogger in Mount Holly, NJ, who argues like you and ask them to contact the FTRF for a $1000 grant.
ReplyDeleteThe reason people in West Bend are so fed up with Ginny is not just because of the library issue Dan. There was the whole high school harassment policy drama wherein Ginny didn't want homosexuals protected under the policy. There is also the sex-ed policy drama... look at her blog... there is more. She starts this drama, then doesn't engage anyone in conversation. She is so personally wrapped up in her issues that they have become part of her identity... so much so that to question her views is taken as a personal insult. She then screams "personal attack" and bans you from her blog. I mean for God's sake, she accused Ginny of taking a bribe in the paper! Who does that?
ReplyDeleteSorry - she accused Mary... not herself.
ReplyDeleteMARIA - holy crap what is my problem.
ReplyDeleteMiss West Bend, okay, I'll agree with that. But can't you guys handle it differently?
ReplyDeleteSomeone on your side just accused me of being homophobic, only to withdraw it later. Another guy just said I had a big ego. Neither addressed any substantive issues.
This type of argument doesn't really get you anywhere. You can accomplish more by sticking to the issues. But, for some reason I do not know, the attacks are fast and furious up there in West Bend. So much so the West Bend attacks bleed over into other places, like my own blog.
Most people comment on substantive issues. I even have authors and superintendents commenting, etc, even recommending/linking my blog.
You guys, though, do nothing but sling mud. Even the name of your blog is an example. Why? I am trying to help you. Why not stop the mud slinging? Not just you, everyone. It's a suggestion, not a question.
Dan, please reconsider lumping me in to a category of people you feel are nasty or expressing opposition to ideas in the form of personal attack. I must admit, I am still scratching my head at the notion that my comment on the school media specialist post was somehow a personal attack on you. When you challenge someone's perspective, logic and choice of words, that's not a personal attack. When I or anyone else asks for clarification on why you or Ginny believe what you do, it's not mud slinging.
ReplyDeleteMaria, by way of example, and likely not the worst as I didn't look too hard, you have a blog post entitled "Ginny's Latest Lies" that ends with "Really? I'm not the one who has gone off the deep end." Is that not nasty? That's not a personal attack?
ReplyDeleteIt was a reply to her comment to me, You keep trying to hold your head above water, but your weakness is causing you to sink.
ReplyDeleteWater analogy. Get it?
And if you read the actual post, you'll note it is a discussion of how Ginny said she/parents in the community were "ignored" by the library/board, how she did not get the chance to explain her position in a public forum without time constraints. This was after 3 months of her blogging about the issue, media interviews, public demonstrations, etc. I'd say her interpretation of reality qualified as irrational, or as "going off the deep end."
I got it, but it is still nasty. You only back up your statement, so you compound the nastiness. I think you do not even realize this because you do it so often--that's likely why you are scratching your head. It's not acceptable to say someone's gone off the deep end if it is not obvious you are joking, and clearly you are not, and even then I would avoid saying that.
ReplyDeleteSo, as I said to Miss West Bend, can't you handle it differently? Why not stop the mud slinging? It's become the way you communicate, just in case you didn't realize that.
Dan - did you chastise Ginny when she insinuated Kristina Smithers was insane?
ReplyDeletehttp://sleeplessinwestbend.blogspot.com/2009/06/if-you-dont-agree-with-ginny-maziarka.html
The latest string of comments here are very interesting. The waters were stirred by one Ginny Maziarka long, long ago. The tropical storm began when she, along with her bff Mary Weigand, went after the school district regarding the annual Day of Silence. What she failed (and still fails) to understand is that the Day of Silence is student-initiated and student-led and therefore is protected by the Constitution (Tinker vs. Des Moines). Then we shifted our attention to the school district's harassment policy, which was to be brought into line with state statutes and DPI guidelines. That included outlining protected classes. But Ginny and crew couldn't accept the fact that the school board was going to move forward to be in compliance. This particular issue is when the venom started to spread. Nasty words for school board members, students, parents, staff and community members who supported the revision of the board policy, continuous open records requests, innuendos - all part of Ginny's crusade to inflict her views, morality, and religion on the West Bend community. Then we decide we're going to go after the high school CARE groups and in particular, the facilitators of a CARE group for LBGT students - and the crusade had no end in sight. Probably feeling as though she was riding the tide of victory and terror, she decided to go after the community library. And FINALLY, someone from the community emerges who is willing to stand up to Ginny and say, "No, you won't impose your morality on the library patrons of West Bend." Perhaps a timeline should be created showing what West Bend has suffered under Ginny's reign of terror. Dan, this isn't about people slinging mud (and I hope you've had that discussion with Ginny, but I doubt it would do any good - afterall, she wields the sword of truth). It IS about a community standing up to the town bully and saying enough is enough. Recall Nazi Germany? No one stood up to Hitler - not Chamberlain, not Douladier, not anyone. And what happened? The folks of West Bend see this crusade for what it is and have said, "No!" Sometimes the only way to fight the bully is to do a bully beat down. Ginny loves to incite the crowds with her words and actions. Maria and the WBPFFS have stood up and told Ginny and group, "We will not allow our library be highjacked by a group of people who want to create a personal religious library." Really Dan - without living in West Bend and witnessing the shenanigans of Ginny first hand, can you really tell the community members to stop?
ReplyDeletedborganist, excellent comment, but it only makes excuses.
ReplyDeleteHere's my response, since you are saying Maria is the leader, the point being it would be great if Maria surprised everyone with restraint and generosity:
"Surprise, Surprise, Surprise," by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 21 August 2010:
“That is selfish thinking,” Mandela, played by Morgan Freeman, says in the movie. “It does not serve the nation.” Then speaking of South Africa’s whites, Mandela adds, “We have to surprise them with restraint and generosity.”
I love that line: “We have to surprise them.” I was watching the movie on an airplane and scribbled that line down on my napkin because it summarizes what is missing today in so many places: leaders who surprise us by rising above their histories, their constituencies, their pollsters, their circumstances — and just do the right things for their countries.
....
It would be great if President Obama surprised everyone and gave another speech in Cairo — or Baghdad — saying that.
I think I did respond with restraint and generosity; Ginny herself has even commented on the fact that I have treated her with respect and not resorted to nastiness. When she and her husband suffered the loss of a newborn grandson and made a blog post about it, I (and several others that disagreed with her book challenge) left her a comment of sympathy. Why don't you read the comments to Ginny's Latest Lies or my response to a Guestbook entry on September 5, 2009 for examples of my restraint and generosity. As Dan pointed out, you are clearly not privy to all the mud slinging that came from Ginny and her supporters. Sometimes when someone crosses the line, my rapier wit sharpens.
ReplyDeleteYou say It's not acceptable to say someone's gone off the deep end if it is not obvious you are joking, but I think it would be clear to anyone that if I write
"Ginny said You keep trying to hold your head above water, but your weakness is causing you to sink.
Really? I'm not the one who has gone off the deep end."
my play on words is pretty darned obvious. Note that Ginny has never commented on my blog or website, and has never said that she felt a comment was out of line or nasty. I cannot say the same about her behavior, as I pointed out that she called me the "woman who says porn is OK for kids" (in a blog post title, which she changed at my request) and then recently accused me of accepting a bribe. Not to mention my personal favorite, when I participated in a discussion at the ALA convention and she said West Bend was being represented by "the likes of Maria Hanrahan."
WWMD. What Would Mandela Do. It's not What Would Maria Do.
ReplyDeleteMandela? "Restraint and generosity."
Maria? "My rapier wit sharpens." "My play on words is pretty darned obvious."
What happened to my last comments?
ReplyDeleteMaria, I swear to Pete, you are the most patient human being on the planet. I am grateful you are willing to put up with all of the insinuations of bribery, unconstitutional attacks on our right to choose what our children read, and the utter ridiculousness of these silly questions from safe libraries, who just wants plugs for his blog. I would be ripping my hair out. Yeesh.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to stay away from this commentary for the rest of the day. Gotta see my doctor about my high blood pressure today, and I don't want to make it worse!
ReplyDeleteAw, thanks beesbess....by the way, you asked earlier about a reply to Ginny's editorial. It's in the works!
ReplyDeleteMaria, I count two of your posts that were not posted. I thought it was a problem with my computer. I have never seen this type of technical glitch before. I have copies of your missing posts that I could resend you for your reposting, but I think you probably have them already anyway.
ReplyDeletePlease do send them via email to me, Dan, with thanks.
ReplyDeleteDone. Let me know if you did not get them, and if not, send me an email from whatever address you like.
ReplyDeleteThanks to Dan Kleinman for sending me two posts of mine from earlier this morning, which he received but for some reason did not appear here.
ReplyDeleteI think I did respond with restraint and generosity; Ginny herself has even commented on the fact that I have treated her with respect and not resorted to nastiness. When she and her husband suffered the loss of a newborn grandson and made a blog post about it, I (and several others that disagreed with her book challenge) left her a comment of sympathy. Why don't you read the comments to Ginny's Latest Lies or my response to a Guestbook entry on September 5, 2009 for examples of my restraint and generosity. As dborganist pointed out*, you are clearly not privy to all the mud slinging that came from Ginny and her supporters. Sometimes when someone crosses the line, my rapier wit sharpens.
You say It's not acceptable to say someone's gone off the deep end if it is not obvious you are joking, but I think it would be clear to anyone that if I write
"Ginny said You keep trying to hold your head above water, but your weakness is causing you to sink.
Really? I'm not the one who has gone off the deep end."
my play on words is pretty darned obvious. Note that Ginny has never commented on my blog or website, and has never said that she felt a comment was out of line or nasty. I cannot say the same about her behavior, as I pointed out that she called me the "woman who says porn is OK for kids" (in a blog post title, which she changed at my request) and then recently accused me of accepting a bribe. Not to mention my personal favorite, when I participated in a discussion at the ALA convention and she said West Bend was being represented by "the likes of Maria Hanrahan."
(Note: In my original posting of this comment, I mistakenly used Dan's name in place of dborganist)
I'm trying a third time to post my two missing comments, this time from a new email address. Apologies for those that are getting this a third time via subscription!
ReplyDeleteI think I did respond with restraint and generosity; Ginny herself has even commented on the fact that I have treated her with respect and not resorted to nastiness. When she and her husband suffered the loss of a newborn grandson and made a blog post about it, I (and several others that disagreed with her book challenge) left her a comment of sympathy. Why don't you read the comments to Ginny's Latest Lies or my response to a Guestbook entry on the WBPFFS site on September 5, 2009 for examples of my restraint and generosity. As dborganist pointed out, you are clearly not privy to all the mud slinging that came from Ginny and her supporters. Sometimes when someone crosses the line, my rapier wit sharpens.
You say "it's not acceptable to say someone's gone off the deep end if it is not obvious you are joking," but I think it would be clear to anyone that if I write
"Ginny said, 'You keep trying to hold your head above water, but your weakness is causing you to sink.'
Really? I'm not the one who has gone off the deep end."
my play on words is pretty darned obvious. Note that Ginny has never commented on my blog or website, and has never said that she felt a comment was out of line or nasty. I cannot say the same about her behavior, as I pointed out that she called me the "woman who says porn is OK for kids" (in a blog post title, which she changed at my request) and then recently accused me of accepting a bribe. Not to mention my personal favorite, when I participated in a discussion at the ALA convention and she said West Bend was being represented by "the likes of Maria Hanrahan."
Does everyone else find amusement in how these comments have strayed from the primary issues of the original post? Let's recap!
ReplyDeleteMiss West Bend brings up the Guestview by Ginny that was recently published in the Daily News. Ginny insinuates I accepted a "bribe" by way of the $1000 grant made to WBPFFS and calls the ALA's actions "covert" and says the library has been "hijacked."
Dan Kleinman responds in a comment with no less than 4 links to his own blog articles, and also 2 links to he and Ginny's "proof," the timeline that only he and Ginny have editing rights to.
I explain the parameters of the grant and he asks where this info was previously disclosed, by myself or the ALA. More discussion of the supposed "covert" coverup of the grant, until I point out it was announced in a FTRF publication in June 09.
Then Dan asks how the ALA was involved in the community and what assistance they provided to me, etc. Then he claims he's being defamed. Then he asks me when it's appropriate to remove material/books from a library, then he urges me to talk about internet filters (not part of Ginny's original complaint.)
Now he accuses just about all of West Bend of nasty behavior, particularly me.
On his own blog, he frequently suggests others are going off topic or being distracting in their commentary when they pose questions to him that he doesn't want to answer.
Where do you think this thread will go next?
(Much as I think Dan jumps all over the place in his commentary, I must extend thanks for emailing me these 2 disappearing posts so I could re-post them. Thanks, Dan.)
Let me take a page from Ginny's almighty book - the Bible. Wasn't it Jesus who cleared the temple when he found the Pharisees and Sadducees making a mess? He most certainly did not roll over and play dead when people were unraveling at the seams. He looked evil in the eye and said, "Get behind me, Satan!" Now, when people impinge on the Constitution and try to restrict the rights of parents to choose what their children read; when people try to throw out the Fourteenth Amendment and due process; when people think the First Amendment protects them and doesn't protect anyone who disagrees with them, then by God, it's time to clear out the temple. Who threw the muck? Maria? I think not. Ginny? Hmm - let me think about that for a second.
ReplyDeleteMaria, let him twist in the wind. His questions are merely lawyerly technique to get you to do his work for him.
ReplyDeleteDan, how much money did you and your group front Ginny? And how much did you profit from your relationship, through her, to the Eagle Forum?
And how do you make your money anyway? Anonymous donations from the Christian Right and other(sic) concerned parents?
Now go away. Why would you stay unless there was profit in it for you?
What shall we call a lawyer who profits from the fears of the timorous -- who feeling scuttled by a changing culture -- by dancing on the thin technical edge of constitutional interpretation?
Answer: assuming you haven't had it banned, see Gulliver's Travels, Part Four.
I'm just musing of course. Nice to see you still chasing this ambulance.
Dan K, are you a lawyer? After reading your letter to CafePress I find it impossible to believe you are one.
ReplyDeleteMiss West Bend, please republish the letter so we can end the obvious insinuation you are making.
ReplyDeleteMpeterson, that wasn't nice, professor. I have no idea why you would jump in here after all this and join in on the attack. It simply amazes me how nasty you all can be. You are all so nasty, and now even a professor, it made the news:
"A Plea for Civility; Local Leaders Asking for Less Hostility in Public Debate," by Dave Rank, West Bend Daily News, 30 June 2010, p.A1.
Page one, no less.
And now I will answer the latest attacks, and to think I defended you from Ginny, if I recall correctly:
Dan, how much money did you and your group front Ginny? $0
And how much did you profit from your relationship, through her, to the Eagle Forum? $0, and I have no relationship to Eagle Forum, except where I reprint what they say about National Hogwash Week, but I do the same for any organization, left or right.
And how do you make your money anyway? What I do regarding libraries is a huge money loser.
Anonymous donations from the Christian Right and other(sic) concerned parents? I have received a few donations. No one has identified themselves as Christian Right. The donations I have received were not from anyone related to the West Bend matter.
Now go away. The freedom of speech advocate is telling me to go away.
Why would you stay unless there was profit in it for you? I do profit, but not financially. I get the same profit that other people get when they get involved in charitable causes.
What shall we call a lawyer who profits from the fears of the timorous -- who feeling scuttled by a changing culture -- by dancing on the thin technical edge of constitutional interpretation? I do not see anyone being timorous here. I do not think any fears are involved at all. Children accessing inappropriate material has nothing to do with a changing culture as people of all political stripes oppose that, except the ALA's OIF and acolytes, of course. As to constitutional interpretation, you blame Ginny for setting aside the law and going for the religious, the moral message, but I eschew that and go for the constitutional issues and you mock me so glibly. In other words, whether you argue the law or argue morality, either way you get attacked.
Professor, if I were a student seeking knowledge instead of a political indoctrination, I would avoid your classes, in part because your logic in using ad hominem argument is so faulty. I fully understand when you have no legitimate argument you pick a target, freeze it, then attack the target. That may make you feel good, but it is not effective and projects that you have no legitimate argument.
I, on the other hand, do not need to attack you and belittle you to draw attention away from the issues. I stick to the issues. I cite constitutional authority for my positions. Listen and learn:
"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."
(Like Maria, I am having trouble getting this comment to stick. I'll try again.)
ReplyDeleteMiss West Bend, please republish the letter so we can end the obvious insinuation you are making.
Mpeterson, that wasn't nice, professor. I have no idea why you would jump in here after all this and join in on the attack. It simply amazes me how nasty you all can be. You are all so nasty, and now even a professor, it made the news:
ReplyDelete"A Plea for Civility; Local Leaders Asking for Less Hostility in Public Debate," by Dave Rank, West Bend Daily News, 30 June 2010, p.A1.
Page one, no less.
And now I will answer the latest attacks, and to think I defended you from Ginny, if I recall correctly:
Dan, how much money did you and your group front Ginny? $0
And how much did you profit from your relationship, through her, to the Eagle Forum? $0, and I have no relationship to Eagle Forum, except where I reprint what they say about National Hogwash Week, but I do the same for any organization, left or right.
And how do you make your money anyway? What I do regarding libraries is a huge money loser.
Anonymous donations from the Christian Right and other(sic) concerned parents? I have received a few donations. No one has identified themselves as Christian Right. The donations I have received were not from anyone related to the West Bend matter.
Now go away. The freedom of speech advocate is telling me to go away.
Why would you stay unless there was profit in it for you? I do profit, but not financially. I get the same profit that other people get when they get involved in charitable causes.
(Continued next comment if it works...)
(Continuing now, if this works...)
ReplyDeleteWhat shall we call a lawyer who profits from the fears of the timorous -- who feeling scuttled by a changing culture -- by dancing on the thin technical edge of constitutional interpretation? I do not see anyone being timorous here. I do not think any fears are involved at all. Children accessing inappropriate material has nothing to do with a changing culture as people of all political stripes oppose that, except the ALA's OIF and acolytes, of course. As to constitutional interpretation, you blame Ginny for setting aside the law and going for the religious, the moral message, but I eschew that and go for the constitutional issues and you mock me so glibly. In other words, whether you argue the law or argue morality, either way you get attacked.
Professor, if I were a student seeking knowledge instead of a political indoctrination, I would avoid your classes, in part because your logic in using ad hominem argument is so faulty. I fully understand when you have no legitimate argument you pick a target, freeze it, then attack the target. That may make you feel good, but it is not effective and projects that you have no legitimate argument.
I, on the other hand, do not need to attack you and belittle you to draw attention away from the issues. I stick to the issues. I cite constitutional authority for my positions. Listen and learn:
"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."
Dan K: Are you a lawyer or not?
ReplyDeleteNo, I won't post the email here yet. I'm working on a timeline of this very serious event! I'll submit it to the newspaper sometime soon. :)
Of course you could post it here if you'd like. I can't stop that.
I am, but I have not practiced in years. The email was an attempt to end serious harassment of Ginny. Are you arguing no one should help Ginny, or are you arguing ineffective assistance of counsel? Either way, you evidence yet again the continued emphasis on destroying or enjoying the destruction of the reputation of people, all as part of an effort to support your point of view that children should have access to anything no matter how inappropriate. The politics of personal destruction.
ReplyDeleteThanks for confirming the email from you is real.
ReplyDeleteSorry Dan, but a sticker that says "Ginny Maziarka doesn't speak for me" is hardly harassment.
Accusing someone of taking a bribe in the local newspaper tho...
Did you not learn anything from the email CafePress sent in response?
What I have learned is that this blog is a neverending series of personal attack after personal attack. I thought I was going to engage in real conversation, instead I'm just engaging in engaging. Not very engaging. I'm not likely to write here further, except if more personal attack needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteOf course, what Dan means by a "personal attack" is anyone who questions his logic or motivations.
ReplyDeleteThis very comment, for example, will be viewed as a personal attack by Dan.
By the way, Dan, which Bar Association do you belong to. Are your dues up to date? And your CLE credits?
ReplyDeleteDan, have you publicly denounced Ginny for stating Maria took a bribe?
ReplyDeleteMarshwood, Ginny was clever enough to say something along the lines of "what, in my opinion, appears to be a bribe." She's learned enough to make insinuations and accusations but phrase them in such a way that she's not stating them as fact so it won't qualify as defamation/libel.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for Dan K. You have always seemed very interested in "protecting children from inappropriate material" by way of internet filtering in public libraries, but that has virtually no relation to Ginny's complaint with the library and seemed to have been added as an after thought. The bulk of her challenge was about books, some of which have won national acclaim and are considered to be profound literature. They most certainly do not meet the criteria of obscenity. One of the books that may have been on her list was "And Tango Makes Three," a picture book based on a true story in which two adult male penguins at the Central Park Zoo hatched and egg and raised a young female penguin. Where is the explicit sexuality and inappropriateness in that? Or in "Heather Has Two Mommies," which was certainly on her list. If you examine the list of books she objected to, you'll realize why anyone linked to her (and much as you may object, you are linked) is perceived as a homophobe.
I wouldn't accuse Ginny of being clever. If I had to place a wager, I'd guess that the editor of the paper made her add the "in my opinion" part.
ReplyDeleteI will say, as I've said before, that I have no doubt that sadly, Ginny and Dan really do view these as personal attacks. When someone's entire identity is wrapped up in a belief, to question the belief is to insult them personally. Where I like to take an idea, hold it up to the light, stretch it out, see what it's made of and hold it at a distance, they are one with their ideas.
@Maria - the way that Ginny's original complaint about the pro-gay books/links in the young adult area/website so quickly changed into general concern about access to "sexually explicit", with very legally-worded complaints reveals, to me, that there was some kind of intervention by a force much smarter than she. I suspect that was Dan.
ReplyDeleteDan, care to confirm/deny?
I agree, Marshwood, but she/they also should have had the sense to change/update the list of books. As far as I know, all of the books on the hit list had some aspect of homosexuality in them. Ginny didn't object to books like Forever...by Judy Blume. I remember my friends and I secretly reading that book about 25 years ago. I don't know how explicit the book would be considered now, but back then it was very scandalous! Books like that with sexual experimentation among heterosexual teens seemed to escape Ginny's attention.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that was just an oversight.
Maria,
ReplyDeleteI do not oppose And Tango Makes Three and I said so to a reporter along with other things. This is how it came out:
"US Libraries Hit Back Over Challenges to Kids Books," by Sara Hussein, Agence France-Presse [AFP], 6 September 2009:
....
Dan Kleinman, who runs the website safelibraries.org, says his concerns are with the sort of sexual content found in "Gossip Girls."
"It is wrong to say that children should not have books because the Earth is not older than 6000 years. It is wrong to say children should not have books because there's witchcraft in them. This is silly," he told AFP, referring to some of the arguments put forward by religious fundamentalists.
But, he says, "some books have explicit, very detailed sexual conduct that is not of a teaching nature... it's just inappropriate for children."
Kleinman, whose website is a clearing house for information about challenging books, insists that he does not want to see books banned, but says there is a legitimate legal basis for restricting children's access to sexually explicit material in libraries.
"All I'm seeking is application of existing law," he said, drawing a parallel between explicit websites or films and literature.
Kleinman accuses the ALA of hyperbole in celebrating Banned Books Week. "The whole purpose of Banned Books Week is to provide this kind of misinformation," he said. "The ALA misleads people into thinking that if you keep an inappropriate book from a child that is considered censorship. It is not."
....
I have a new name for Kleinman: Propaganda Dan
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, he's now going to weep like a baby about these mean personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteDan: this is the blogosphere. If you can't take the heat....
Dan, I do agree with you that there are things (books, video games, movies, etc.) that are inappropriate for children. Ginny would have people believe that I am someone that says absolutely everything is OK for everyone, yet I have not said that and never will, nor do I believe it. I just don't understand how a free thinking person can think that it is ok to say, "I think this book is inappropriate for children, therefore it is inappropriate for ALL children, and it must be kept from them."
ReplyDeleteSo while I have my opinions about what I think is appropriate for minors at their various ages, I know I don't have the right to impose my view on others. Why does she, or why do you, think that you know what is appropriate reading material for my kids, or anyone else's? In West Bend, she likened extremely well-written, moving literature such as Whale Talk by Chris Crutcher (I will never forget that book, it moved me so) to "pornography." Talk about inappropriate!
Well, well, well. After all this time, it appears Maria and I have more in common than anyone thought.
ReplyDeleteI don't tell anyone what they can and cannot read. I just advise communities that the ALA's anything-goes view goes against legal principles and common sense.
As to Chris Crutcher, he has commented on my blog and he links to me and I to him. He does not write pornography. Authors can write what they like. What authors write is not the issue. I support all authors, including those who write challenged material.
The issue is whether it is legal to keep certain material from children and whether the ALA is misleading people by the actions it takes in local communities and by the standards it promotes such as it being age discrimination for a librarian to keep children from inappropriate material. That's the problem. The ALA has a materially false message. I try to add balance so that people can make informed decisions, not misinformed decisions.
For example, the ALA says Internet filters block breast cancer. That was true years ago, but currently that is false. When the ALA misleads communities by saying filters block breast cancer, I am perfectly free to point out the ALA is wrong, then link material to prove it.
Maria, I am willing to work with you to get Ginny to address only legitimate issues. At the same time you also have to be open minded enough to realize the ALA may be intentionally misleading people. I sense you have made a good start with your latest comment.
Dan, do you like pina coladas? Getting caught in the rain...?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I don't think we have all that much in common. You still are a propponent of librarians keeping children from "inappropriate" material. Inappropriate according to whom? You? The librarian? Everyone has different views about what is appropriate, and that's why parents should decide. Children and teens still have the Freedom to Read. When someone like Ginny comes along and tries to keep brilliant literature away from young adults, that is not a question of whether or not it is legal to keep certain material from children. That's an outright defiance of the First Amendment.
Got a good laugh outta that song.
ReplyDeleteListen, setting aside my point is to leave the decision up to the local community, your argument essentially is that no one is even in a position to make a judgment, it must be left to the individual, else it violates the First Amendment.
That is false. It is the ALA's view, the ACLU's view, the NCAC's view and your view, but it is false.
Think about it. If no one is ever in a position to make a decision, then movies would not be rated, cigar stores would not need to put covers on the girlie mags and put them on the high racks, public schools would have to have any material whatsoever.
It all sounds nice. Really, it sounds nice to say no one is in a position to make a decision. Then how do you explain Board of Education v. Pico that allowed the removal of pervasively vulgar material having no educational value from schools? How can you do that if no one is in a postion to judge the contents of the book?
Indeed, why do libraries have selection policies in the first place if every decision must be left to the individual?
In US v. ALA, a case the ALA lost big, by the way, the US Supreme Court said, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." And the Court went on to find Internet filters in public libraries were constitutional. How is that possible if such decisions must be left to the individual?
And do you know who started the trend that librarians would no longer keep inappropriate material from children? Was it a national outcry? Protest? Law? No. It was done silently. It was the ALA. It was Judith Krug herself, about 40 years ago. The same person who lost on similar issues in US v. ALA. It's a losing position.
The problem with much of your argument is that these practices (rating movies, etc.) are not LAW. For example, the MPAA is a self-regulating entity, with motion picture studios submitting films to be rated. Over the years, the way films were rated has changed, and the MPAA is an independent body comprised of parents, who provide the ratings to give cautionary warning to the viewing public, so parents can decide what films their children can see. The MPAA works to the industry's advantage, because it helps the audience make informed decisions about how they spend their movie going dollars. But it's not law.
ReplyDeleteI think it's unfair to lump public libraries in with school libraries in this discussion. Schools and their libraries may have parameters set by the school district that public libraries don't have. And if you remove something from a library under the auspices that you are protecting minors from it, but the material has not been ruled to be obscene or unlawful for minors, it is a violation of the First Amendment.
It's not fair to say that librarians "no longer keep inappropriate material from childen" because of supposed ALA mandate, as if they are merely tools of the ALA. Don't you imagine that librarians have an inherent belief in the people's free access to materials?
Yes, I do, but if you don't fall in line, you suffer consequences. The remainder is quoted from "THE INTERNET AND THE SEDUCTION OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC LIBRARY":
ReplyDeleteArticle 5 of the Library Bill of Rights does not actually mention in loco parentis, but the Intellectual Freedom Manual lays down the new rules.30 Many libraries, used to a tradition of local control, continued separate card files for children and continued to act as authority figures responsible to the community. In response, the Office of Intellectual Freedom drafted an "Interpretation of Free Access to Minors" and sent it to librarians all across the country. (It was this statement that cut off the partnership between parents and librarians and caused what parents see as a betrayal of their trust.)
The Statement labels as "unprofessional," any librarians who continue to notify or act for the parents. Librarians who do not follow the ALA line are accused of being "in violation of Article 5 of the Library Bill of Rights."31 I asked Ms. Krug if librarians were legally bound to follow the Statement of Interpretation. "no," she said. "It's a philosophical statement. But 55,000 librarians adhere to it."32
As to the MPAA, you just made the exact same argument the ALA makes. The ALA tells libraries not to follow the MPAA but they are supposed to follow the ALA. It's a double standard to me.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, no, the MPAA is not law, but it is a representation of common sense and in the people's interest in adherence with common sense.
You still have not explained why so many decisions rest on people making decisions at the same time you and the ALA argue only the parents can make those decisions.
Further, the ALA provides guidance to parents about reading materials. So parents do get involved as the ALA says as the only means to ensure children are getting the proper material, but the ALA has seen to it that it makes no difference. You see, the ALA almost never reveals the information a parent needs to make an informed decision.
The ALA says only parents can make the decisions, then the very same ALA misleads parents as to the contents of various materials. This is fundamentally unfair. A book with oral sex in it has been given the ALA's top award for books for kids 12 and up. I personally got the author of that book to admit he would not even give it to his own 12 year old. The ALA did not advise parents of the oral sex or something like that. Yet it gave the book its top award. There is nothing fair about that at all. Either way, the parents lose. West Bend needs to trust West Bend, not the ALA or Maria funded by the ALA.
You don't give parents enough credit. I realize some parents are not interested in doing this, but how difficult is it to research a book, movie, CD, video game, etc. to try to find out if it's appropriate for your child. If I was looking for info about a book, I wouldn't go the ALA website to find out more about it, nor would I think a book was right for my child simply because it was on an ALA award list. I would look for reviews on the book both from resources like School Library Journal and Publishers Weekly, as well as from consumers. Maybe I would ask a librarian about it, or parents of other children that may have read it. If I still had doubts about a book and whether or not it was appropriate for my kids, I'd read it first myself. I would do the same for music, movies, etc.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect a library, a movie theater, a video game or music store, etc. to parent my child for me. I also don't expect the ALA to parent my child or know what's best for him.
And you really need to drop the "Maria funded by the ALA" quips. It's getting old, and do you really believe that the Freedom to Read Foundation, a separate corporation from the ALA, designating my group as the recipient of a grant which one member (not even me, mind you) was reimbursed $180 qualifies as "Maria funded by the ALA"?!
Sorry, it was quippy. Forgive me, I'm only jealous no one is funding me.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it appears you and I have stated differing views and agree to differ. That is the basis of the debate that West Bend should have in he future when Ginny brings it up again, and I'm certain she will. People should discuss these very important issues without attacking each other. This conversation of ours has been the most civil ever. You are viewed as a leader in that community. Perhaps you can surprise everyone with restraint and generosity and lead the way for them to do the same.
And when the ALA shows up in your community again, perhaps I can be invited up as well for a public debate with the ALA, and not just a 3 minute speech before a board. Perhaps the FTRF can grant me the travel expenses, or you can allot me a portion of the remainder of yours. It is not fair for the ALA to show up and there is no one to speak otherwise. The ALA has years of effort by Judith Krug to promote its ideas behind it, while I have the US Supreme Court and common sense, perhaps even local law, behind me. Let the people decide for themselves what's what after listening to such a debate.
You make it sound as if there was no opportunity for Ginny to express her views. Was her blog, various radio, TV and newspaper interviews, the print ads, and the radio ads not enough?
ReplyDeleteDid Ginny specifically invite me to speak at her public meeting in late March to represent an opposing view to her position? Of course not. At the June 2nd board meeting, the members of the public that wanted to speak all got the same amount of time. Ginny got 2 minutes, I got two minutes, each speaker got two minutes. The speakers were pretty evenly divided between the two "sides," so there was not overwhelming majority and no favoritism.
If you object to the library board including an ALA speaker as part of the June meeting, that's your prerogative. But they are well within their rights to invite whomever they choose, as was Jake Jurss for his Read In event, as was Ginny for her meeting.
Were you able to get my Guestview response to Ginny's from last week? If not, I can send it to you.
The point is not how much Ginny got to talk or who she invited to what. The point is a direct challenge to the ALA when it again appears in our community. Ginny versus the ALA would not be fair. Indeed the ALA often wins in local communities by picking off inexperienced prey.
ReplyDeleteYou all got 2 minutes, but the ALA got much more and made materially false statements that went unchallenged. Your community deserves healthy debate, not unchallenged misinformation.
When the ALA shows up again and makes another speech, I suggest I get equal time to respond and to provide accurate information. It would be best if the ALA and I debated directly. If it chooses not to speak for fear of being effectively challenged in public, like when it cancelled a national TV broadcast interview on Banned Books Week when it learned I was invited for balance, I could still provide useful accurate information in the amount of time the ALA already had. Doing this in person will be far more effective than in writing. And the ALA extending me a grant for travel expenses would be classy.
If only we had $180 more... if only Dan had been able to talk to the library board... if only, if only.....
ReplyDeleteFly yourself out to West Bend Dan.