Welcome..... Wissup??

WISSUP - WISCONSIN SPEAKS UP


Copyright (c) 2009 Ginny Maziarka. All rights reserved.

Monday, July 13, 2009

ALA Conference - Chicago - West Bend Going Down

Yes, West Bend - TODAY.

These are YOUR librarians and YOUR mayoral appointed Library Board PRESIDENT telling ALA conference participants how they shut YOU down.

Yes, indeed.

HERE'S A SHOUT OUT TO WEST BEND!

A SPECIAL PANEL, JUST TO TALK ABOUT WEST BEND! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SOLID REPRESENTATION, MAYOR DEISS. NICE LIBRARIANS.

PARENTS, BE FOREWARNED - THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE BOOKS FOR YOUR CHILDREN. THEY ARE THE LIBRARIAN CENSORS WHO HAVE REMOVED ALL COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND ARE, INSTEAD, IMPARTING ALA STANDARDS THAT PUT BOOKS CONTAINING CRUDE AND RAUNCHY SEX ACTS IN THEM FOR ALL CHILDREN ONTO THE SHELVES, CLASSIFIED FOR YOUNG ADULTS NONETHELESS, AT YOUR WEST BEND COMMUNITY MEMORIAL LIBRARY. YES, ALL CHILDREN! YOURS, MINE...THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY THEY SERVE! THEY ARE THE CENSORS. THEY CHOOSE.

DIRECT FROM THE ALA SCHEDULE:

Book Challenges in West Bend, Wisconsin
Session Time: 11:30 am CDT/ 12:30 pm EDT/ 10:30 am MDT/ 9:30 am PDT
Book Challenges in West Bend, Wisconsin
Meet the librarians and community members who are fighting to keep library materials on the shelves in West Bend, Wis. at this year’s American Library Association (ALA) Annual Conference in Chicago. A special panel sponsored by the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), Intellectual Freedom Committee and Freedom to Read Foundation will feature West Bend Community Library Director Michael Tyree, Young Adult Librarian Kristin Pekoll, library board President Barbara Deters, former library board Member Mary Reilly-Kliss and community organizer Maria Hanrahan.


HOW EXCITING! MARIA HANRAHAN IS INCLUDED AS A ....WHAT??? AN ORGANIZER? THAT IS HER QUALIFICATION? INTERESTING!

WEST BEND, WHO WILL ANSWER THIS?

1. Are YOUR librarians using vacation pay for this opportunity to talk negatively about YOUR community?
2. On WHOSE time was their presentation prepared? On YOUR tax dollar, so they can DIS YOU at the conference?

HERE IS AN EYE OPENER FOR YOU!

Libraries, Librarians, and America's War on Sex by Jen HammondOIF Blog1 July 2009

RIGHT NOW, YOUR LIBRARIANS ARE LEARNING WHAT THE ALA WANTS THEM TO KNOW:

"Come hear how to respond to the “protecting the children” arguments and how to protect everyone’s access to sexuality-related material." IN A CONFERENCE BY THE ABOVE AUTHOR!!! YES, THIS IS THE NEW AND IMPROVED COMMUNITY STANDARD SET BY YOUR LIBRARIANS AND THE ALA!

THIS IS SO DISTURBING, OUR CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE LAYING THE SMACK DOWN WITH THE MAYOR AS TO WHY THIS IS BEING ALLOWED.

ALA BRAINWASHING. NICE AND GENTLE. EASY DOES IT. LIBRARIAN BORG.

43 comments:

gotrootdude said...

Any book worth banning is worth reading.

Concerned West Bend Citizen said...

You've really outdone yourself here, Ginny.

1: why not just pay to attend the panel discussion?

2: you have absolutely no idea what is being said in there, so how can you make these assertions about "dissing" and complain about it?

3: if you are concerned about "all children" having access to a book in the Young Adult section, how is moving it to the Adult section preventing that access? Your presumption is that kids must roam the library and happen upon random books outside their age-appropriate section. So what's magical about moving it to the adult shelf that would prevent the same exposure?

4: why does it matter if they're using vacation pay? would you rather they use their vacation pay to go to Las Vegas? a strip club? a casino?

Loki Motive said...

I swear I've read this exact post before. Is this a rerun?

SafeLibraries said...

"LIBRARIAN BORG."

Who's the Queen?

Paige said...

You should have simply used your tax payer dollars and purchased a ticket to attend the conference. I went to Dr. Marty Klein's lecture on Saturday and found it extremely informative, not only from a librarian's perspective but also from the perspective of a citizen of a free country. I also find it quite insulting that you "dis" the library profession so openly. Why don't you attend library school and earn an MLIS if you'd be so much better at it? There's a library school at UWM or in Madison...right in your own backyard.

SafeLibraries said...

Paige, by any chance did Dr. Klein mention anything about me or my SafeLibraries efforts? If so, what?

Thanks.

Paige said...

He briefly mentioned West Bend and showed a couple of pictures of the float, but it was mostly just as an example of what he termed "sex panics." No Safe Libraries, though...he's not a librarian himself and his lecture wasn't really focused strictly on library materials.

SafeLibraries said...

Thanks, Paige. I hope Ginny doesn't have any "sex panics." ( ;-)~ Sorry, Ginny! hahahaha )

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

ROFL!!!!

GOOD ONE!

So protecting minors from sexually explicit materials is now called "SEX PANICS" at the ALA Conference?

BUT ARE WE SURPRISED?

SafeLibraries said...

Panic alert! Panic alert!

Paige said...

"So protecting minors from sexually explicit materials is now called "SEX PANICS" at the ALA Conference?"

No.

WEST BEND CITIZENS FOR SAFE LIBRARIES said...

Well, Paige, can you explain your comment then? Inquiring minds...

Loki Motive said...

Ginny (and Dan, and anyone else interested in the topic), could I suggest a couple books for you?

Robbins, Louise S. Censorship and the American Library: The American Library Association's Response to Threats to Intellectual Freedom, 1939-1969. Contributions in Librainship and Information Science 89. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996.

Geller, Evelyn. Forbidden Books in American Public Libraries, 1876-1939 : A Study in Cultural Change. Contributions in Librainship and Information Science 46. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1984.

Robbins' book is particularly pertinent as it discusses a period of time in the ALA where the purpose of the organization was still somewhat unformed. The origins of the ALA's self-imposed charge as guardians of Intellectual Freedom is probably messier than you might expect.

The books will give you a good indication of the history and context that the ALA and American libraries exist in. It will also reveal the context that you are working in as well: that is, past challenges to library collections, etc.

I should point out, I do not recommend these books in an attempt to "convert" you. It is quite possible, if not probable, that they will just give you more fuel for the fire. Instead, when discussing this particular cause, from both sides, I fell it's important to be informed of where the cause came from.

SafeLibraries said...

Great comment.

Amanda said...

1. Are YOUR librarians using vacation pay for this opportunity to talk negatively about YOUR community?

OK, this is a weird thing that you keep bringing up.

Please understand: regardless of which discussions an individual librarian is taking part in, the ALA conference is professional development for librarians, who really are professionals.

If the system is working, they're not taking a vacation day: they're getting paid for a regular day of work. They're hopefully spending on their vacation days on more exciting, and less work-related, events. Do you think that people in other fields use their vacation days on professional development and business trips? (Hint: they don't.)

If they ARE using vacation pay (which would be lousy), um, what's the problem? People can use vacation days for whatever they want. If they want to spend their 10 or 20 days of vacation performing pagan rituals and hosting orgies on a desert island, you can't stop them, and more importantly, it is none of your business. Come on.

Kristina said...

Are YOUR librarians using vacation pay for this opportunity to talk negatively about YOUR community?

Do public school teachers get paid for teacher inservice days? Yes, because they are focusing on job related things. Attending conferences relevant to their jobs. So are the librarians...

Nuf said!
Short enough?

Jason said...

How does the expansion of offerings in the library beyond what you think is acceptable turn the librarians into "THE LIBRARIAN CENSORS."

The Merriam-Webster definition of censoring is:

censor
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
cen·sored; cen·sor·ing Listen to the pronunciation of censoring \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Date:
1882

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (censor the news) ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable (censor out indecent passages)


Including things that are considered objectionable is the opposite of censoring. If the religious fundies in this country can't even use the language to make their arguments, then how can you expect others to take you seriously?

Maria Hanrahan said...

I find it interesting that Ginny is very concerned with whether or not library staff attended this conference on work time or personal/vacation time. Either way, what does it matter? The conference provides opportunities for professional development for librarians, as Paige pointed out.

Ginny, if taxpayer dollars are of such concern to you, you should worry about the tax dollars that funded the library staff having to deal with your book challenge/complaint for the last 5 months in addition to their other duties. During that time, the library has had a surge in new library patrons/cardholders, increased use of the library, and they have launched a successful summer reading program and held many other programs and events. Talk about working well under pressure! As a true supporter of the library, I commend the staff on their handling of the book challenge issues and all of their other tasks.

I will be posting a summary of my experience on the panel discussion at the conference on my blog, hopefully later today. I'd be happy to post a comment here with a link when it is posted, if Ginny will allow it.

SafeLibraries said...

Maria, you are playing dirty pool again. Yet again I wish you would be fair and honest. A fair fight is more interesting than a dirty one.

You play dirty.

"[Y]ou should worry about the tax dollars that funded the library staff having to deal with your book challenge/complaint for the last 5 months...."

That's dirty pool, Maria. We are all here precisely because the library refused to honor its own materials reconsideration policy. That refusal had nothing to do with Ginny. It has more to do with the ALA that directs libraries to drag things out, though I'm certain not forever, like West Bend did.

To blame Ginny for dragging out this controversy for so long when it really was the library's own fault is dirty pool.

"During that time, the library has had a surge in new library patrons/cardholders, increased use of the library, and they have launched a successful summer reading program and held many other programs and events."

There's your next dirty trick. By saying that you are implying Ginny attempting and failed to thwart library usage and growth, even summer programs for children! False! I have never seen her try to do that.

Summer library programs are successful all over the USA. Yet your dirty pool is to imply that West Bend's successful program is somehow related to opposition to Ginny! But again, she's not involved in an way.

"As a true supporter of the library, I commend...." More dirty pool. Ginny is not a library supporter? Is a false one? People who support you are the only "true" library supporters?

Tell me, Maria, who died and made you Queen?

The only reason you play dirty and attack Ginny personally over and over and over again is that you have absolutely no legitimate argument whatsoever for following ALA directives to allow children access to inappropriate material in the public library.

"I'd be happy to post a comment here with a link when it is posted, if Ginny will allow it."

If Ginny will allow it. One more parting shot at Ginny. One more personal attack. One more cloud of obscurity to cover your own actions in keeping West Bend children exposed to harm under the ALA's guise of "free speech."

You have been making the personal attack a standard of your argument for so long now that I am beginning to expect it from you any time you say anything at all. You are growing unbelievable.

People are tiring of your personal attacks, Maria, peppered with misinformation.

Maria Hanrahan said...

That's dirty pool, Maria. We are all here precisely because the library refused to honor its own materials reconsideration policy.

Please cite specifics regarding how "the library refused to honor its own materials reconsideration policy." If you are referring to the cancellation of the meeting that was scheduled for March 26, that meeting was cancelled under the advisement of the city attorney. The library board scheduled and held the June 2nd meeting to address the issue, even though a complaint had not been resubmitted by the Maziarkas, as they had publicly said they would do. No part of the reconsideration process was omitted.

By saying that you are implying Ginny attempting and failed to thwart library usage and growth, even summer programs for children!

No, by saying that I am giving examples of how the library has been busier than usual, which staff had to manage along with their regular tasks, plus dealing with the book challenge. In no way does my comment imply that Ginny tried to thwart library usage, but perhaps some would believe that by promoting the library as "unsafe," she is indeed trying to do that.

"I'd be happy to post a comment here with a link when it is posted, if Ginny will allow it." (Maria)

If Ginny will allow it. One more parting shot at Ginny. One more personal attack.


Actually, I was requesting permission. This is her blog and she may not want me to post that link here.

People are tiring of your personal attacks, Maria, peppered with misinformation.

Dan, you are the only one, to my knowledge, who has accused me of personal attacks. Ginny makes a point of discussing how taxpayer dollars might be spent in regards to the ALA panel discussion. I point out that taxpayer dollars have been used so the library can deal with the book challenge she brought forth. It's a legitimate discussion, not an attack.

From you, I would like to know how "inappropriate material in the public library" is determined, and by whom. Please don't say it is determined by "community standards." I want specifics. How would such a policy/process work? How is it determined what is appropriate and what isn't for a broad age category such as sixth through twelfth grades? How would a library develop and operate such a policy? These are the questions we've been asking for months.

SafeLibraries said...

The US Supreme Court says, "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."

According to Maria, nobody can make any judgments. Therefore, the US Supreme Court case is irrelevant. Throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think not.

Maria Hanrahan said...

Dan, I did not say no one could make judgments, but asked how those judgments would be made and how the procedures would work. You again pass on the opportunity to present specifics and instead again quote the Supreme Court comment which is broad and ambiguous.

SafeLibraries said...

Maria, my view of specifics in this particular case that the community must decide for itself is irrelevant.

Amanda said...

Maria, my view of specifics in this particular case that the community must decide for itself is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? If you're denouncing a time-honored, straightforward system - the professionals make these kinds of decisions based on feedback from patrons (regarding what to include rather than exclude) - then you need to provide a viable, practical alternative. What is it? Have the community vote on every book that the library purchases? Have the community vote on some list of "standards" that will then be interpreted and applied by - who? Ginny? The librarians? The board? Or maybe we'll just go on as usual, and then every time one person raises a stink about a particular book, we'll toss it?

It's annoying and pointless to complain about a process if you don't actually have a concrete alternative in mind. Appealing to something as vague as "community standards" without having any idea how such things would be determined or applied is irresponsible.

Amanda said...

Oh, and if Ginny comes back with, "I'll only discuss this with the board," I will freak out. That's an insane thing to say when your whole rigamarole is based around the idea that the community is more knowledgeable than the professionals/elected officials.

SafeLibraries said...

Amanda, I'm in New Jersey, not West Bend. That's why it's irrelevant.

And I'm not complaining about a process that doesn't even exist yet.

Amanda said...

New Jersey? Wow. At least I'm from the right state.

Still, this is dumb. If you feel sufficiently knowledgeable and competent to comment on this topic endlessly, and even to make specific claims about this particular case, surely you've got some ideas has to how these community standards would be implemented. Right? I'm not asking you to tell me what those standards are - you don't know, neither does Ginny, neither does anyone else - but I am curious about how we'd go about finding out what they are.

Plus, haven't you interfered in a whole bunch of similar fights? This is what I mean: you can't keep getting involved in these arguments if you have no idea how to solve the problems you're complaining about. That's silly. Just because you don't live in West Bend doesn't mean you can't be a productive member of the discussion.

(And besides, Ginny doesn't live in West Bend either, right?)

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else find it a little creepy that Ginny seems to have been skulking around outside the ALA conference and taking photos? Obsessive, even?

SafeLibraries said...

"[S]urely you've got some ideas has to how these community standards would be implemented. Right?"

Honestly, I don't. My concern is giving communities the knowledge that choices exist, not what I think the choice should be. That's what the ALA does, not me. Only the ALA makes it appear is if there is no other choice, mainly by totally disregarding it.

Example. On June 2 in West Bend, the ALA's top leader, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, said that some community tried to get books moved in the St. Louis County Public Library. What she did not reveal is that that effort was successful. That's important to know, is it not?

"Plus, haven't you interfered in a whole bunch of similar fights?"

Well, obviously you were at that meeting and heard Caldwell-Stone make that very point about me. But her definition of interference is interference with ALA policy. Actually, I am often thanked for my efforts in *removing* ALA interference from local communities by educating the local citizenry who then act on their own behalf.

Amanda 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."

Also, just to clarify for those who don't know: That court case had nothing at all to do with books. Just so we're clear. It had to do with actual pornography, and the need for internet filters on library computers. (Which I agree with, by the way, and if that's what Ginny were looking for, I'd be all for her.) As far as I know, there's no court ruling claiming that the books Ginny is actually talking about are pornographic, or even that they are "material inappropriate for minors".

People who think that The Perks of Being a Wallflower is porn should consider watching some actual porn, and then re-evaluating.


My concern is giving communities the knowledge that choices exist, not what I think the choice should be.

In the future, you might want to find a "community representative" who is more competent than we got in this instance :\ There are clearly people - like the folks in St. Louis - who were able to state their cases eloquently and reasonably enough to get changes made.

And no, I wasn't at the meeting with Caldwell-Stone - but it's pretty clear from your website that you're big on stirring things up. Which is fun, don't get me wrong. But it seems like you'd do well as an actual organizer if this is your chosen crusade. Because really, if a community hasn't gotten outraged all on its own, do you really need to be an instigator if you won't even suggest solutions?

SafeLibraries said...

Amanda, you are wrong about a number of things, but I sense you are at least making an effort to keep an open mind.

Amanda said...

Amanda, you are wrong about a number of things

Do you mind clarifying? I don't mind being corrected :)

SafeLibraries said...

Pornography has nothing to do with the issues, for starters.

Amanda said...

It does if people keep bringing up that quote and putting it on banners.

SafeLibraries said...

Yes, sometimes people use the term, but that does not make it legally relevant to the issues.

Buzymom said...

What Dan leaves out about the St Louis situation is that the group tried to have policy changes made to move large numbers of books from YA to adult, similar to Ginny and her group. This did not end up happening and the group leader states this on her blog. He points out ONE example of a book that was moved (and there may have been a couple others, although I have seen no evidence of this). The fact is individual books can and do very occasionally get moved thru librarys' material reconsideration policies and sometimes library staff will take it upon themselves to move a book. It sounds like this is what happened in St Louis, hardly an example to use as a large scale policy change.

SafeLibraries said...

I never said large scale. That would be simply ridiculous anyway.

The point was the ALA's failure to disclose that ANY books were removed whatsoever. That's the problem. Don't shine the focus on me. The ALA spoke at that June 2 meeting, not me.

Kristina said...

DAN SAID: "To blame Ginny for dragging out this controversy for so long when it really was the library's own fault is dirty pool."

Dan,
Again, that is what Ginny has said. That is not what happened. She was told she would need to re submit her complaint due to all her statements to the tv and paper media. Itbecame difficut to know exactly what she was requesting because of all the different things she said. From wanting 2 books removed from library, to no that's not what they were asking but instead for more balance and adding books, than to a change in policy. Therefore the need came to have her clarify. Ginny in turn began to say they dismissed her complaint without reason and she stood by her original complaint. By law the library board could only hear the complaint that was filed in writing. She then went on tv news and said she had in fact re filed in April. She did not.
So it was not the library that drug their fet, it was Ginny. All she had to do was follow the instructions given on how to proceed. Instead it was she who dug her heals in and refused to do what was required. It would have been easy to do and stopped the media blitzing and duration of this whole fiasco.

Anonymous said...

Gotroot, in your case does that include the Bible? Just asking.

Anonymous said...

"Ginny, if taxpayer dollars are of such concern to you, you should worry about the tax dollars that funded the library staff having to deal with your book challenge/complaint for the last 5 months in addition to their other duties."

How about the tax dollars used to buy obscene books for the library? How about tax dollars to pay for a librarian who may not follow what the community wants? How about paying for a mayor who won't give this issue over to the community?

Hahn at Home said...

Without SafeLibraries, I don't believe Ginny would have had the ability or wherewithall to maintain this fight - it's unfortunate for West Bend and all libraries that someone like Ginny decides to be a moral arbiter for those who don't share her beliefs. She'd have gone down in flames because this was strictly an anti-gay issue with her at the outset and received outside counsel to massage her message. Oh, did I say "massage?" Better move my comment to the adult section.

Anonymous said...

*YAWN*. People like Ginny and Dan surface every few months, demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of rights or law, or indeed how having an opinion doesn't make it CORRECT. A product of their own inadequate education perhaps? And they will rail against anyone willing to try to engage them in an ACTUAL discussion. ("Dirty pool"? Seriously?)

Rest assured folks, Ginny & Dan will soon melt back into obscurity, and will be replaced by someone equally ignorant, equally "important", and equally, well, boring.

*sigh* - okay you two, fire up the old computron and show us all the amazing response this comment deserves. Ok everyone, hold your breath....

SafeLibraries said...

Anonymous. Classy, making ad hominem remarks anonymously.

But boring? Please. Obviously you haven't read my blog lately. I'm awarding cakes to people fighting terminal cancer, offering Playboy subscriptions to NBA players, pointing out how the library director in Holyoke, MA, is getting away with murder, etc.

Please, call me ignorant and unimportant, but don't call me boring.

Why don't you subscribe to my blog? Then you can call me ignorant and unimportant, but at least I won't be boring anymore.