Welcome..... Wissup??

WISSUP - WISCONSIN SPEAKS UP


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

Monday, July 6, 2009

Safe Libraries promoted in West Bend parade
















We had a group of 40+ people working with us this week on a float that sent the word out to parents and taxpayers in West Bend that the library they pay for does not care what they think, the taxes that pay our librarians salaries are used to help them deceive the public and misrepresent West Bend, and the place they always thought was "safe" for their families, ISN'T. The warnings and "heads up" went out on 1,000 bookmarks (see picture) that were given to parade attendees. In fact, we ran out and will have to do triple duty on that order for the next event!

As we began our trek down Main Street, we received a standing ovation! All along the route, people were standing up and applauding, shouting "thank you" and/or giving us a thumbs up!

We heard only one person shout out "censorship!" Two people refused to take a bookmark.

As we rolled down the street, the PREAMBLE to the U.S. Constitution played for all to hear, willingly spoken quite eloquently by a group of area children. They did a great job! Thanks, kids!

I'll have more pictures later. I have one of some real cuties dressed up in sandwich boards to look like their favorite books!
Our float stated: COMMUNITY STANDARDS......HIGH? OR LOW? IT'S YOUR LIBRARY!
We had a washing machine on board that had signs on each side that said "KEEP OUR LIBRARY CLEAN!"

We think the message was clear, and West Bend agreed.













61 comments:

Anonymous said...

A job well done. Holding up the values in which this country was founded.

Anonymous said...

I was there. I'm too afraid of the verbal attacks to get involved so I didn't introduce myself, but I support you wholeheartedly. My whole family does too. And I know others like us as well.

Keep going!

WEST BEND CITIZENS FOR SAFE LIBRARIES said...

Thank you! We know there are many of you out there who are afraid of the harsh backlash such as what you see on this blog from those who do not agree. Be confident in knowing you are in the vast majority of citizens in West Bend who want their community standards upheld. We continue to go forward because of the many, many emails and phone calls that mirror your statement. Thanks for your comment!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #2 - Thank you for letting WBCFSL know how you feel. Please remember this topic when you vote.

I applaud Ginny for having the guts to stand up for what is right and taking the heat.

There are many more like you out there, who don't want the backlash.

Anonymous said...

What part of the Preamble supports your cause?

WEST BEND CITIZENS FOR SAFE LIBRARIES said...

Let me ask you..which part does not? That would be easier.

Anonymous said...

Truly a sad day when you have nothing better to do than move culture in the wrong direction. Are these books really warping the minds of young adults? The funny thing is, kids don't read today. I'm absolutely positive that they are not going to take the time to comb through a book to find pornographic passages when they have access to the internet. Heck, they can probably access pornographic material via their cell phones. As far as homosexual content is concerned, shame on you for wanting to move it to a dark corner of the libary. These kids are having enough trouble as it is coming out, but you want to flag the books and ridicule the young adults it pertains to? Open your eyes, it's simply a fact of life. People who live around you don't choose to be homosexuals. Grow up, and stop waisting your time as well as the taxpayers' time. You are truly a disgrace to your community. Don't forget, your support only represents a small fraction of the taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

Why didn't you walk, like the others, Ginny?

Anonymous said...

Ginny, have you even considered that after you put red flags and ratings on books with explicit material that interest in these books will only increase? Haha, good for you! I can tell that you really thought this one out. Also, aren't children who are repressed of sexual content more likely to grow up and become sex offenders? I'm glad your really doing something positive for the community. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

First off, whomever made the comment about the culture going in the wrong direction...I'm wondering what direction you mean. Because looking at the stats today's culture isn't doing so well...
In today's culture more children are pregnant and contract STD's. In today's culture we are tossing away unborn babies like used toilet paper. In today's culture many children/teens have no respect for elders or people in authority. In today's culture you are harrassed for standing up for children.

Wow...talk about a blanket statement: not reading books about mast******* or bl** j*** can make one a sexual offender? Excuse me? That made no sense what-so-ever.

Anyone that thinks these books are so wonderfully educational should check them out, head to the nearest park and read them out loud to a group of minor children and see what happens to you. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Glad to see you're promoting that pagen celebration that is The Hobbit.

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Here comes the flood of personal attacks..... duck everyone! LOL!

West Bend Citizen Advocate said...

Anonymous #6.

No particular reason; however, if you'd like to ride next time, just ask in advance!

Anonymous said...

The parade was great and the Safe Libraries float was great!

SafeLibraries said...

Ginny, your blog is filled with lots of comments. This is the first one I've seen where everyone chooses to remain anonymous!! Either that's a coincidence, or people on both sides are afraid of something.

Be that as it may, I suspect one of the "Anonymous" comments was left by library director Michael Tyree. It's the comment that starts, "Truly a sad day when...." It is substantially similar to what he was quoted to have said elsewhere, to the best of my recollection. I just can't put my finger on it. Maybe something written by Dave Rank.

It's amazing what a cloak of anonymity can do.

responsible460toes said...

GREAT JOB WBCFSL! Your statement is TRUE! We as citizens want a safe library for our kids and grandkids. I was just in the library the other day with my daughter and came across an "R" movie in the YA section. I took it to the counter clerk and she said to take it to the children's clerk. I talked to her about it and she said anyone can check out anything. My daughter could check out a "R" rated movie but legally could not see that movie in a theater without me. Why on earth would the libarians want children to check out these adult rated items? I wonder how many children this summer are going to the library in the morning while their parents are working and watching movies that are not made for kids and quickly returning them before their parents get home? Why wouldn't our community library want to keep our kids safe? Do they have security cameras? Because it would be creepy to leave my kids unattended especially in the back by the YA, who knows what kind of kids or adults are roaming the libary who read and watch the garbage. Also re: homosexuality - IT IS NOT NORMAL and it is SICK. Homesexuality was classified as a mental illness. Normal is not putting something in where it doesn't belong. Garbage in - Garbage out.

Kristina said...

Responsible said:
Homesexuality was classified as a mental illness.
Used to be way back in the DSM. Not anymore.

Also WBCFSL 40+ people? I hope that is not what is called majority.
Generally I find most people will take hand out info out of mere curiosity. It does not mean that they agree or disagree for that matter. I means they are curious or do not want to be seen taking a stand on either side. I would be more interested in what the sanitation department has to say about how many of the flyers, bookmarks etc. were found laying in the streets, sidewalks or lawns along the parade route.

I am wondering who is underwriting some of these expenses? Are you willing to release those names or organizations? My guess you will say no one is, but I think we all know diff.

I would like to know because I would like to file numerous ORRs against their org or agency. Oh wait that would be a good reason to not say who or what helps sponsor this escapade.

Again with Alanis Morrisett: (sp)
"Isn't ironic don't ya think?"

Paigealicious! said...

"I wonder how many children this summer are going to the library in the morning while their parents are working and watching movies that are not made for kids and quickly returning them before their parents get home?"

That's not the library's problem. Don't let your children go to the library without you if you're worried about what they might check out or what kind of other people are there.

SafeLibraries said...

Responsible460toes said, "I was just in the library the other day with my daughter and came across an "R" movie in the YA section. I took it to the counter clerk and she said to take it to the children's clerk. I talked to her about it and she said anyone can check out anything. My daughter could check out a "R" rated movie but legally could not see that movie in a theater without me. Why on earth would the libarians want children to check out these adult rated items?"

Why?

Because of Deborah Caldwell-Stone!

The very same person who smeared me publicly in West Bend with false information has written an article for libraries describing how libraries should not be guided by movie ratings. You see, the movie ratings come from the MPAA, a third party group that should have no say in local libraries, according to Caldwell-Stone. Instead, you are supposed to listen to the ALA, the politically correct third party group, and ignore the MPAA ratings.

And voila, your library refuses to take MPAA ratings into account. What a coincidence!

That's more evidence of more ALA control of your local public library.

It's no wonder Ginny was not allowed to attend the ALA conference about West Bend Over.

See if this link works: Movie Ratings are Private, Not Public Policy, by Deborah Caldwell-Stone, ILA Reporter, April 2004.

Anonymous said...

According to the 2006 study "Religious Affiliations Among Adult Sexual Offenders" by Donna Eshuys and Stephen Smallbone, which was published in the Journal Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, children who had strong religous upbringings and who were repressed of anything that suggested sex, were more likely to become sex offenders as adults. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It's natural for humans to have tempation, especially in regards to sex. You don't want your children eventually snapping upskirt photos of ladies at the local Dollar Tree some day do you? Here's a thought, why don't you become parents instead of expecting a public library to uphold your radical ideals. As a fellow conservative, I'm deeply offended by your cheap, white-trash nonsense. How about you focus your time and energy not by bashing your local library, but instead by teaching your children how not to become an overweight, outspoken hick.

SafeLibraries said...

"Overweight, outspoken hick" alert!

Anonymous said...

Kristina you really have a lot of rage directed at Ginny. That can not be healthy. Just sayin'.

For anyone to say it's not the libraries problem that kids are unattended and able to access R rated movies and obscene reading materials are way out in lefty-field. WE are the library...the taxpayers. WE have every right to to blame the library, the YA Zone librarian and the library board...even the Mayor. We are human beings and WE should care what happens to minors, especially if OUR tax dollars are paying for it.

Libraries are suppose to be safe, but they aren't. Don't fool yourself into thinking they are.

Let the community decide what is obscene and let the parents reconsent.

As far as who is paying for book marks and so forth...it's your average everyday hard working taxpaying citizen. There are no ORR's for average americans who are not on the time clock for the county, state or country.

If people take the hands out and keep them or not...the message still gets out there. That was all that's needed, but thanks for your concern.

I challenge each and everyone of you who think these books for minors are not obscene:
Take the book go to the park or music on main, gather up a bunch of minor children and read the books to them.

Paigealicious! said...

I think what bothers me is the underlying assumption many people have that librarians only exist to do the bidding of the public. I'm not saying that they should completely ignore the public's wishes, of course--it is a public library and it is funded by taxpayer dollars. But librarianship is a PROFESSION and librarians have gone through school and continuing education in order to gain professional judgment which they then use to select, classify, and make available a variety of information. Not every person will find the books in question obscene, but if you do (and that's completely fine), don't let your children read them.

Anonymous said...

Or we could save the librarian's a lot of hassle and just have the parents re-consent.

What brought this to the lime light was a YA Zone librarian promoted sexually explicit books aimed at children 11-17 on the libraries website.

Paigealicious! said...

Well, thank goodness we librarians have you to save us the "hassle" of actually doing our jobs.

Anonymous said...

Paige- Librarians can do their job and yet need to be held accountable to the public in which they serve.

Being a professional librarian does not give you the authority to over ride parents and the community.

Checks and balances.

Paigealicious! said...

Simply because the WB librarians have not given in to your demands doesn't mean that they are "overriding the community." They are using professional judgment and the standards set out for a professional organization to make the decision that they feel best serves the community. Not everyone in the community has your point of view, after all.

Anonymous said...

Paige- Sure not everyone shares my views, but how do you know for sure that the majority shares your view or the view of the library board?

I know how we can find out...take it to the people and let the community decide for themselves.

Remember the library is suppose to uphold community standards. So let's figure out whose standards they agree with. Fair enough?

Anonymous said...

Wow, just when I thought people had no lives... I read about this cause. Instead of making it your mission to single out books that are sexually explicit (which will probably make it even more interesting to young people to a point where they will look for that damning sticker on binding), why don't you take the time to read up a little on the books your children are bringing home. It would be far more productive and probably make you seem less close-minded. Especially considering you took the books (Perks of Being a Wallflower, etc.) completely out of context. In your petition, you state you would like to re-classify youth-targeted pornographic books. None of those books are considered pornographic. They are not written for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. They were written to depict the author's past (Wallflowers...) and not make sex and sex parts seem so "dirty" and make people ok with their sexual appetite(Teenage Guys Survival Guide, etc.). Until you can get a majority of the 65,000+ people in your town to sign the petition, I don't really see you having a case. Not everyone thinks the way you do.

Anonymous said...

"Also re: homosexuality - IT IS NOT NORMAL and it is SICK. Homesexuality was classified as a mental illness. Normal is not putting something in where it doesn't belong. Garbage in - Garbage out."

Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual(DSM) in 1973

Marjorie said...

I am amazed by how many people out there want libraries to be their child's parent.

If you have children who are wandering into the library unattended and checking out books you don't like, do you know what the problem is?

YOU.

It is your job to enforce your family standards, not the library's. I don't care what your family standards are, as long as you don't advocate harm to to others. You can believe that the earth is 600 years old, it is a mortal sin for a woman to have an orgasm, or that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. But DO YOUR OWN JOB. It is not the responsibility of the library to keep your child's mind virgin and pure.

In MY house, my children can read what they want, whether it be Judy Blume or that really dirty boy, Shakespeare. Busybodies butt out!

*as an aside--I've always been happy that the incredibly vulgar, crude, and sex-filled plays of the Bard go completely over the prude's heads these days, and the Bowlders among us now just work to make copyright-infringing 'clean' versions of Hollywood movies.

Marjorie said...

Hey, a test for the censors here...what would you think of a book with passages like these:

Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose genitals were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

SafeLibraries said...

Marjorie! Keep going!

Marjorie said...

Why should I keep going? You don't! You find little snippets from books, books that you haven't read, and then post them with no context and use that to condemn a book.

Using your strategy, a HUGE number of books could be shown to be somehow obscene.

But here, you seem to be saying that a line or two isn't enough to judge a book by...so which is it?

SafeLibraries said...

I was making a light-hearted joke, for fun. Sorry if I disturbed you.

I have no strategy to show books are obscene. You must be thinking of someone else.

Marjorie said...

Sorry,I get a bit touchy when people attack my profession and attack books I love--things very near and dear to my heart.

But if you want me to go on with the Bible passage, it continues, 'So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled'

SafeLibraries said...

Thanks, Marjorie.

Marjorie, you sound reasonable. So allow me to ask this:

Why do you think so many people approach the issue so aggressively, mainly by besmirching people instead of addressing the issues? For example, you used the "censor" label when that might not even apply. Frankly, there are people way worse than you. Why do you think they do that? What do they hope to gain by being so nasty against people but never addressing issues?

Really, Marjorie, honest debate is better any day than name calling. One would think if they had a solid foundation upon which to base an argument, they would do so.

What do you think?

Anonymous said...

SafeLibraries: Same question to you. Why does the petition that you obviously support use the word "pornographic" (referring to the youth-targeted pornographic comment) to describe literature that does not fall within the meaning of the word? If you want semantics, I can give you semantics all over this blog and this cause. Before you find the speck in someone else's eye, maybe you should get the plank out of your own.

Anonymous said...

I also think Marjorie had an excellent argument. So, that really makes your points... bunk.

Anonymous said...

Other people also tried keeping their communities clean from bad books!!! They wanted their community standards upheld from certain "thoughts". Those books were the Torah and other Jewish literary works. Those people were the Nazis and they burned books... and burned people. Congrats on your facist views! (please note that I am using a completely sarcastic tone)

SafeLibraries said...

Anon asked about the word "pornographic." Then he went on the personal attack. Can't we just have a civil conversation?

As the ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone said in West Bend on June 2, "pornography" has nothing to do with this, except people use the term loosely. Why the petition uses the term? You'll have to ask its writer.

And will you please try to be more civil next time?

Anonymous said...

Checks and balances? How does that even remotely relate to this topic?

The system of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. With checks and balances, each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others. This way, no one branch becomes too powerful.

This means the legislative, executive, and the judical branch.

Where in the world does "checks and balances" relate to public librarians?

Did none of you take government in high school? Are you people absolutely stupid?

Anonymous said...

SafeLibraries: I made that comment. I am not a he. I am a she. And I have a Phd in Chemistry. I am being civil. I have not thrown around any dirty words or unwarrented statements. I am asking for answers to your meanings. If you want to discuss semantics, then be sure you know the meanings in the cause you support is all. Debate is debate and, if you can't handle "aggressive" opposition, then you shouldn't be responding.

Anonymous said...

Especially when you question whether or not a word should be used to begin with (i.e. censor)...

SafeLibraries said...

Lady Anon, I'm am not arguing semantics. Pornography has nothing to do with the issue.

Please be civil--going once, going twice....

Anonymous said...

Sold. But let me leave you with this. You want civil. Yet, you joke when someone is trying to make a valid argument. You judge someone on the wording they use (i.e. censor). Learn some manners yourself. Good night.

SafeLibraries said...

PhD in Chemistry, huh? Would you please tell me if it is true that some people cannot tell the difference in taste between caraway seed oil and spearmint oil? Do you know the percentage? Here's a start.

Anonymous said...

I am not a food chemist, but educated guess... Since taste is directly related to smell, you can definately tell the difference between the two. One is spicy (used in breads, etc), the other...well the other is spearmint. If you can't tell the difference... you either have a horrible sense of taste, no receptors, or have been a smoker for years. I am sure its plausible though that you may not be able to distinguish the taste, which extenuating circumstances.

Anonymous said...

with

SafeLibraries said...

I heard about 5% of people cannot tell the difference in taste. But that was long ago. I am trying to confirm, just out of curiosity.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be surprised by that. Ever had curry? That contains cumin. A taste similar to caraway, but stronger. And if you compare that to say... wrigley spearmint gum. Hard to get those confused. Interesting statistic though. I wonder what the circumstances are. If they are missing those taste receptors (environmental or genetic), its quite possible.

SafeLibraries said...

Are you a cosmetic chemist? Give us some secrets of the industry. Like you should only get small mascaras so the bacteria fighting components (formaldehyde, yecch!) are still available by the time you need a new package.

Marjorie said...

'Censor' is not name-calling. Censor is what you are. Please look up to the word in a dictionary:

Per Merriam-Webster:
1 A person who supervises morals and conduct, as in a: a official who examines materials for objectionable conduct.

That seems to be what you have appointed yourself to do.

I made a good point, and you pretended the word 'censor' was an insult as a way to dodge it.

But to answer your question, as to why people get so emotional: freedom of speech is an issue very near and dear to Americans hearts. Attacking books is just seems deeply un-American to me. Also, I often love the books that people want to hide from children, and it hurts me a bit to see them disparaged.

SafeLibraries said...

Marjorie, do you see the difference in tone between when you are on the attack and when we had normal conversation about chemistry? Shouting down people is akin to censorship.

And what you accused me of is not true, but when one shouts, truth is irrelevant.

Too bad you cannot discuss things about libraries in the same manner you discuss things about chemistry. Really, I am surprised you went back on the attack after our polite chemistry conversation.

Marjorie said...

I am not the same person as the chemist. I am not a chemist, I am a librarian. Fortunately, I am a corporate librarian, so I don't have to deal with any censors (and I work in environmental science, so there's not a whole lot of controversial material in my Civil Engineering Reference Manuals, Crop Protection Handbooks and Toxicological Profiles.

But again, I protest that I was 'name-calling.' I was calling you what you are, per the Merriam-Webster definition.

The fact that you think 'censor' is a pejorative actually says something very deep about American values--we value the freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas so highly that the thought of reviewing content for 'acceptability' is viewed with very high suspicion.

And THAT'S the real community value. Trying to restrict the free flow of ideas is a bad thing.

But I understand that claiming you are being victimized by me is much easier than addressing any points I have made.

SafeLibraries said...

Oops!! I got my "Marjorie"s mixed up!! Now that's embarrassing. Sorry!

I'm so confused now, I take back what I said, obviously to the wrong Marjorie, and I'll just not reply further.

Anonymous said...

If you guys are what being a so-called Christian is all about, count me OUT. You're a bunch of nuts. Take care of your own kids and leave the rest of ours alone. We can choose what we allow our kids to read with no help from you.

Marjorie said...

There are not two Marjories. There is one. Someone was posting as Anonymous, and I was posting under my name. So it shouldn't have been that confusing.

I will reiterate what I said at the beginning:

If you have children who are wandering into the library unattended and checking out books you don't like, do you know what the problem is?

YOU.

Stop asking other people to do your job for you.

SafeLibraries said...

There's another Marjorie in another blog post. I'm still confused. And you are obviously not the same Marjories, one being a chemist and the other not.

Forgive me for bowing out of a conversation that has confused me. Both blog posts are so long I do not seek to be re-acclimated.

Marjorie said...

Honey, your conversation with the chemist was part of this thread. I know that you spend more time fighting books than reading them, but this really should not be all that confusing.

SafeLibraries said...

Oh, you are right. This is really embarrassing. Sorry.