This one I cannot resist. This is one area where I do know what I'm talking about. I am a retired librarian and was a conservative throughout my career. I was a prison librarian and I actually denied to whole prison populations the pornography, violent political screed, mafia memoirs, treatises on the successful practice of con games and excoriation of law enforcement they demanded from the taxpayers and crime victims who pay for their upkeep and their presumptuous criminality. This earned me the enmity of many librarians.
I would note that two close relatives of mine are librarians too and are of liberal persuasion; I respect that in all who are of good will, as I know they are.
The library profession is dominated by leftist bigots who see as their guiding light the advancement of their political beliefs through their trade. Try expressing conservative views at a librarians' convention, in a library school classroom or in a librarians' publication. Within the field itself at best you will be patronized; you may well be jobless. I refused membership in the American Library Association and the New York Library Association because of their blatant ideological biases and their obvious and profoundly unprofessional scorn for truly free inquiry.
Most mainline librarians instantly condemn what appears to them to be (gasp!) CENSORSHIP! That no librarian has an unlimited budget, that selection of materials necessarily involves rejection of some purchases, that there must be and usually are,stated standards for (eeeeechhh) discriminating collection building,is a reality of librarian life. The standards extolled by those who dominate the library world are exemplified as follows: It is not proper for librarians to make personal value judgements on the suitability of prospective acquisitions when they advocate values prized by liberals, such as in Heather has Two Mommies or Blood in My Eye, or children's books which portray humanity as a rapacious , environmentally destructive lot or books which bid criminals reject personal responsibility for their outrages, or sicko novels which portray children as monsters. This is CENSORSHIP and cannot be tolerated. It is proper for librarians to reject acquisition of materials which they personally evaluate as "racist", "sexist", excessively patriotic or any of a score of ill defined "isms" mandated in the world of the left to be regarded as anathema, self evident and indefensible upon accusation. That is NOT censorship; that is principled selection, HUMPHHH!.
I am reacting to news reports which, if accurate ,say that a librarian in Cambridge MA rejected a donation of Dr. Suess books from Mrs. Trump on the grounds that they expressed"racist stereotypes". Imagine the reaction in the hypersensitive media had a librarian in Tuscaloosa, Alabama rejected
"Heather has two Mommies".
To those who laud this librarian's actions, if they are accurately reported, I would say this: Please define the term "racism" because it is an accusation so misused and overused over the last fifty years that it is largely bereft of meaning though it has undoubted unfavorable connotations. Then please specify what statements by Dr. Suess rate such excoriation. I await your response.
I remember the delight with which I, as a first grader in the atavistic town of Amherst, NY, an affluent suburb of benighted Buffalo, in the yet High Middle Ages of the 1950's, awaited readings of Dr. Suess by our school librarian. To think that I was, in the intense naivete of my deep minority, so manipulated by that ill intended person, devastates me; why, to think of how I was unwittingly perverted! To know that I was, even to the extent of determining my life's work ,so ill used, WELL!
I would suggest that it is relevant that the librarian in question is described as practicing in Cambridge, MA; perhaps that setting has had some effect on her alleged actions.That there is a , eh, popular viewpoint in that community is certain. yes? I do support librarians who respect the values of their community. Can it be that she might have a less than favorable opinion of the President and (by an implication which was widely spared Hillary Clinton) his wife?
I'd also note that Dr. Suess has been, of yet, spared the condemnation of even the self righteous baby boom generation which loved him. And all those librarians and teachers who exposed us to his works! To know that, by fiat of the 2017 left, they are declared heretic? I don't know how I will survive this. Look, we know you radicals want to destroy America - but Dr. Suess????Jack
Friday, September 29, 2017
Civil War II thoughts
I hope I haven't worn out the Civil War analogy. I'll try it yet again. Think of June, 1863. Behind? First and Second Manassas, the Seven Days, Fredericksburg and, worst of all, Chancellorsville. "My God", said President Lincoln, "what will I tell the nation?" Ahead? Victory and a united America, with all the good that brought the world in the 20th century.
Ok, we've lost another one in the fight against Obamacare and it will be ever that much harder to eviscerate it now. But not nearly impossible. Imagine if we were living under Hillary's onerous sway now and her third attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment had just been turned back but not because we repelled it, because Dems themselves thwarted her. We'd be pretty nervous about the future survival of our gun rights, yes? Despite their whistling in the dark that they are out of the woods on Obamacare's survival, Dems know its still in mortal danger. And it is; 2018 is coming.
Just think of what it would have been like had the radicals prevailed in 2016. They would have hastened to extend the Federal government overreach which was and is the overall purpose of Obamacare. But they have not the power to do it.We should take heart from that continuing and joyous reality.
In a football game, one team can be on the opponent's five yard line, then fumble - the fumble is picked up by the opposing team and run in 95 yards for a TD. What could have been a seven point lead becomes a seven point shortfall - really a 14 point difference. The Dems may think they are on the five yard line and ready to score with the salvation of Obamacare, but they are not!
The solution to the GOP disarray evident in the failure to muster adequate support for President Trump's initiatives is 2018. Replace the waverers with those who have the fortitude to back our courageous President. He was elected because he was NOT one of them. The nomination of Roy Moore is an encouraging start.
So take heart, all of us who know we are engaged in an existential war with the American left for the life of this, despite its flaws, best great country on earth. Jack
Ok, we've lost another one in the fight against Obamacare and it will be ever that much harder to eviscerate it now. But not nearly impossible. Imagine if we were living under Hillary's onerous sway now and her third attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment had just been turned back but not because we repelled it, because Dems themselves thwarted her. We'd be pretty nervous about the future survival of our gun rights, yes? Despite their whistling in the dark that they are out of the woods on Obamacare's survival, Dems know its still in mortal danger. And it is; 2018 is coming.
Just think of what it would have been like had the radicals prevailed in 2016. They would have hastened to extend the Federal government overreach which was and is the overall purpose of Obamacare. But they have not the power to do it.We should take heart from that continuing and joyous reality.
In a football game, one team can be on the opponent's five yard line, then fumble - the fumble is picked up by the opposing team and run in 95 yards for a TD. What could have been a seven point lead becomes a seven point shortfall - really a 14 point difference. The Dems may think they are on the five yard line and ready to score with the salvation of Obamacare, but they are not!
The solution to the GOP disarray evident in the failure to muster adequate support for President Trump's initiatives is 2018. Replace the waverers with those who have the fortitude to back our courageous President. He was elected because he was NOT one of them. The nomination of Roy Moore is an encouraging start.
So take heart, all of us who know we are engaged in an existential war with the American left for the life of this, despite its flaws, best great country on earth. Jack
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Trump ain't no slouch
In the fall of 2000 I was driving alot at night so I listened to the Bush-Gore debates on radio. Even over that limited medium Al Gore's frantic, childish impatience when Bush spoke(which momentarily denied Al his pulpit), suffused with disdain for anyone with the temerity to question his august prescience, was most obvious. It is ever a defining characteristic of the left and is exemplified by Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Like all of their kind they see their recent defeat as an insolently and insufferably placed roadblock to their unquestionably just crusade to "fundamentally" transform an essentially unjust America.
I daresay a player like our President has dealt with many of this snooty ilk in his business career and is practiced in, well, playing them. Of necessity he is a realist and knows he's going to win some and lose some but over his working life he's been a winner. He knows Schumer and Pelosi for what they are; contemptuous bigots who would, should they muster the power, destroy him. But he senses that he must countenance some constructive intercourse with them. That works for me; I trust President Trump to be always faithful to the ideals he has expressed; he's already demonstrated such constancy, I hold.
I spent 20 years working in state prisons and though their guile is usually purposed by negative intentions, inmates did display an often fascinating array of techniques for "getting over". Skill at con games is much exhalted and studied in that setting. An essential and ubiquitous con game involves, of course, gaining unwarranted trust and gratitude. I would not put this beyond Chuck and Nancy but they cannot measure up to Donald's understanding of the tactic. He'll see it coming and will, I'm sure, be blithe to throw it right back in their disingenuous faces when the right time comes. And if he gives them a taste of their own duplicity, then more power to him - hoist them on their own petards I say.
I know some martial arts involve allowing opponents to make their most powerful moves and then turning their strengths upon them. Consummate wheeler dealers like our President are no doubt accomplished practioners of this heady tactic in other settings.
I sympathize with all of his supporters who fear that the President is conceding to the dark side in schmoozing with the left. Of course there is risk but I do not think our gutsy President betrays us by taking it. We need to stick with this guy and give him the support he needs in standing up for us. I would urge those in the common sense majority in the real America who are considering abandoning him to reconsider. His ascension was a miracle which saved our country from perhaps guaranteed eventual totalitarianism. Lets stay the course with him despite the assured difficulties and dangers. Jack
I daresay a player like our President has dealt with many of this snooty ilk in his business career and is practiced in, well, playing them. Of necessity he is a realist and knows he's going to win some and lose some but over his working life he's been a winner. He knows Schumer and Pelosi for what they are; contemptuous bigots who would, should they muster the power, destroy him. But he senses that he must countenance some constructive intercourse with them. That works for me; I trust President Trump to be always faithful to the ideals he has expressed; he's already demonstrated such constancy, I hold.
I spent 20 years working in state prisons and though their guile is usually purposed by negative intentions, inmates did display an often fascinating array of techniques for "getting over". Skill at con games is much exhalted and studied in that setting. An essential and ubiquitous con game involves, of course, gaining unwarranted trust and gratitude. I would not put this beyond Chuck and Nancy but they cannot measure up to Donald's understanding of the tactic. He'll see it coming and will, I'm sure, be blithe to throw it right back in their disingenuous faces when the right time comes. And if he gives them a taste of their own duplicity, then more power to him - hoist them on their own petards I say.
I know some martial arts involve allowing opponents to make their most powerful moves and then turning their strengths upon them. Consummate wheeler dealers like our President are no doubt accomplished practioners of this heady tactic in other settings.
I sympathize with all of his supporters who fear that the President is conceding to the dark side in schmoozing with the left. Of course there is risk but I do not think our gutsy President betrays us by taking it. We need to stick with this guy and give him the support he needs in standing up for us. I would urge those in the common sense majority in the real America who are considering abandoning him to reconsider. His ascension was a miracle which saved our country from perhaps guaranteed eventual totalitarianism. Lets stay the course with him despite the assured difficulties and dangers. Jack
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Slavery
Human history is an indescribably complex and painful process and in its objective consideration, some positive values and accomplishments may yet be reasonably perceived in the totality of the lives and accomplishments of some slave holders (eg. Washington, Jefferson and Lee) Some of them fostered a world in which slavery is presently absolutely abhorred, though not fully eliminated. Washington and Jefferson are widely and deservedly revered but Lee did very much to reconcile a painfully reunited country, (which could not have eventually faced up to its shortcomings had it not survived) in 1865 by counseling and exemplifying rejection of revenge and retribution.
The real truth, from which the left shrinks, is that some who enabled slavery, in the British colonies and in independent America, harbored profound misgivings about slavery and that some of their advocacy and actions hastened the end of the subhuman institution in the West. The formidable British navy, commanded by the British government, went far toward ending the transatlantic slave trade. The British government enacted this out of true conviction that that traffic was purely evil.
And of course, who are leftists to pontificate on slavery, as has been their recent cant? 20th century Communist slavery is the very worst that that execrable institution has ever manifested. Burn your "Che" shirts and publicly abandon your consequence free casual Marxism-Leninism, radicals, should you improbably seek any credibility from civilized people. But I'm not holding my breath you see.
That the defense of the Confederacy was, in effect, a defense of slavery is historically undeniable. But that was not the only purpose of those who fought through the hell of Civil War combat and camp life to defend that new nation. History confirms that the majority of Confederate soldiers fought to defend their homeland from the invasion of what they reasonably ,given 19th century communication and transportation, saw as a foreign invader. The present display, including proudly flying the Battle Flag, by millions of good people in the South, but also some in the North,of gratitude for that effort, is more often than not, in a country where the civil rights war has been won with overwhelming popular support, not an assertion of bad will toward black people but a proud and unapologetic expression of the perceived worth of the courageous Confederate effort. It also bespeaks love for a more relaxed, traditional and reverent American lifestyle and a promise that it will be defended. Its an eloquent expression of current concern about federal government overreach, of resistance to elite liberal cultural disdain for the American heartland and of caution against possible future antiAmerican totalitarianism. American slavery no longer exists; federal and in many states, state government abuse of power is an all too obvious present reality and has in it the potential to destroy our freedom if the left successfully harnesses it. Say what you will about them, those Rebs stood up to it in their day.
It is claimed that millions in this country are highly disturbed by statements or monuments praising the memory of the Confederacy. No doubt that is right. Millions though, also consider attacks on expressions of regard for the positive aspects of the Confederacy to be unacceptable. Are their wishes of less worth than those (many of them nonetheless people of good will) the left seeks to mobilize in what for radicals is a continuing effort to destroy our country and replace it with Marxist hell?
My Alma Mater, SUNY New Paltz, has recently proposed an open minded discussion to determine whether certain college buildings named for the original Huguenot settlers of New Paltz, NY - refugees from oppression in 17th century France ( which should endear them to the left ) - should be renamed because the originals held slaves. The outcome of this exercise is preordained; it amounts only to a well intended ritual. That these buildings were named to honor people who had some positive effect on American and local history by founding the community in the first place and practicing lives of some productivity, will probably not persuade the leftist bigots who set the political tenor of the New Paltz college community. This conflict fairly exemplifies one of the main courses the left follows in striving to destroy America: discredit all who deviated in our history from current leftist standards of political correctness! Destroy America's regard for its history and you go a long way toward destroying America's culture - a requirement for the "deserved" death of our country for being "fundamentally unjust".
Predictions by our President and others that this antiConfederate crusade is a prelude to much wider attacks on our historical heritage and to eventual campaigns to discredit our most revered historical figures and of course, our flag, for unforgiveable political incorrectness, are ON POINT! Since the fundamentally communist Marxist far left is ever devoted to the acquisition and vigorous exercise of POWER, the obvious course for the loyal common sense majority in the real America is to mobilize the political will to stop this wrong headed assault. A good start is to express thanks to the President for his courageous and even handed assessment of this situation.
A visit to the perhaps all important Gettysburg battlefield shows a profusion of monuments to Union stalwarts and very few for Confederates. The Confederacy was beaten; a united America emerged from that war ready to face the harrowing challenges posed by the great dictatorships of the 20th century. Southerners have, despite their defeat in the 1860's, been the backbone of the U.S. military which saved us and Western Civilization from that onslaught, for one hundred years.They are owed very much credit for that.
I know I would rejoice at the building of towering monuments to the fortitude of Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and all those whose lives were destroyed by bondage in this otherwise free land. But leave the Confederate memorials, leave them be! John/Jack
The real truth, from which the left shrinks, is that some who enabled slavery, in the British colonies and in independent America, harbored profound misgivings about slavery and that some of their advocacy and actions hastened the end of the subhuman institution in the West. The formidable British navy, commanded by the British government, went far toward ending the transatlantic slave trade. The British government enacted this out of true conviction that that traffic was purely evil.
And of course, who are leftists to pontificate on slavery, as has been their recent cant? 20th century Communist slavery is the very worst that that execrable institution has ever manifested. Burn your "Che" shirts and publicly abandon your consequence free casual Marxism-Leninism, radicals, should you improbably seek any credibility from civilized people. But I'm not holding my breath you see.
That the defense of the Confederacy was, in effect, a defense of slavery is historically undeniable. But that was not the only purpose of those who fought through the hell of Civil War combat and camp life to defend that new nation. History confirms that the majority of Confederate soldiers fought to defend their homeland from the invasion of what they reasonably ,given 19th century communication and transportation, saw as a foreign invader. The present display, including proudly flying the Battle Flag, by millions of good people in the South, but also some in the North,of gratitude for that effort, is more often than not, in a country where the civil rights war has been won with overwhelming popular support, not an assertion of bad will toward black people but a proud and unapologetic expression of the perceived worth of the courageous Confederate effort. It also bespeaks love for a more relaxed, traditional and reverent American lifestyle and a promise that it will be defended. Its an eloquent expression of current concern about federal government overreach, of resistance to elite liberal cultural disdain for the American heartland and of caution against possible future antiAmerican totalitarianism. American slavery no longer exists; federal and in many states, state government abuse of power is an all too obvious present reality and has in it the potential to destroy our freedom if the left successfully harnesses it. Say what you will about them, those Rebs stood up to it in their day.
It is claimed that millions in this country are highly disturbed by statements or monuments praising the memory of the Confederacy. No doubt that is right. Millions though, also consider attacks on expressions of regard for the positive aspects of the Confederacy to be unacceptable. Are their wishes of less worth than those (many of them nonetheless people of good will) the left seeks to mobilize in what for radicals is a continuing effort to destroy our country and replace it with Marxist hell?
My Alma Mater, SUNY New Paltz, has recently proposed an open minded discussion to determine whether certain college buildings named for the original Huguenot settlers of New Paltz, NY - refugees from oppression in 17th century France ( which should endear them to the left ) - should be renamed because the originals held slaves. The outcome of this exercise is preordained; it amounts only to a well intended ritual. That these buildings were named to honor people who had some positive effect on American and local history by founding the community in the first place and practicing lives of some productivity, will probably not persuade the leftist bigots who set the political tenor of the New Paltz college community. This conflict fairly exemplifies one of the main courses the left follows in striving to destroy America: discredit all who deviated in our history from current leftist standards of political correctness! Destroy America's regard for its history and you go a long way toward destroying America's culture - a requirement for the "deserved" death of our country for being "fundamentally unjust".
Predictions by our President and others that this antiConfederate crusade is a prelude to much wider attacks on our historical heritage and to eventual campaigns to discredit our most revered historical figures and of course, our flag, for unforgiveable political incorrectness, are ON POINT! Since the fundamentally communist Marxist far left is ever devoted to the acquisition and vigorous exercise of POWER, the obvious course for the loyal common sense majority in the real America is to mobilize the political will to stop this wrong headed assault. A good start is to express thanks to the President for his courageous and even handed assessment of this situation.
A visit to the perhaps all important Gettysburg battlefield shows a profusion of monuments to Union stalwarts and very few for Confederates. The Confederacy was beaten; a united America emerged from that war ready to face the harrowing challenges posed by the great dictatorships of the 20th century. Southerners have, despite their defeat in the 1860's, been the backbone of the U.S. military which saved us and Western Civilization from that onslaught, for one hundred years.They are owed very much credit for that.
I know I would rejoice at the building of towering monuments to the fortitude of Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and all those whose lives were destroyed by bondage in this otherwise free land. But leave the Confederate memorials, leave them be! John/Jack
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Obama rises - angels and ministers of heaven protect us!
So our thankfully former, communist President suggests he may once again exercise the incalculable moral authority accrued to him for support of a political system which murdered upwards of one hundred million of its own subjects in the 20th century. The issue is DACA but it doesn't really matter what it is. His background and his beliefs discredit him as much as would support for Naziism, and for the same reasons. The convictions he attempted to work into eventually irrevocable law are beyond any expression of loathing, as is any hint of the always totalitarian far left.
What, will he seek the initial support of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as he did in his original political debut? She could boost his morale while in exile with stirring tales of trashing American soldiers. And Bill's stated lack of remorse for his assertively antiAmerican actions in the '60's provide an encouraging example of unpunished subversion. But then, Barack was President and accordingly privy to all our nation's secrets and is capable now then, if sufficiently provoked, to reveal them, is it not so? I do not doubt that he intends as much when and if the time seems right but I also trust that loyal Americans in government heroically denied him some insights during the long dark night of his shameful ascendency. His era and, I trust, the entirety of that which countenanced the empowering of him, his factoti and the tawdry Clintons, will someday soon be seen for the bizarre interlude it was.
Some past Presidents yet participated in our national life. T. Roosevelt did but there can be no doubt of his love for his country. The radical left in the U.S. was a despised faction then, blowing up San Franciscan squares and inspiring O'Neill plays; it took the monumentally naive boomers to make of the New (and Old) left a palatable (after a "regert"able" fashion) political force. We boomers are on an inexorable slippery temporal slope now and one can hope that the exit of our predominate ( but certainly not definitive) ingrate faction will restore sanity to our polity.
Oh do pontificate away Barack. I'm reminded thereby of the scene in the film Ed Wood where the spent character of Bela Lugosi thrashes in pathetic futility in a pool of muddy water. Jack
What, will he seek the initial support of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as he did in his original political debut? She could boost his morale while in exile with stirring tales of trashing American soldiers. And Bill's stated lack of remorse for his assertively antiAmerican actions in the '60's provide an encouraging example of unpunished subversion. But then, Barack was President and accordingly privy to all our nation's secrets and is capable now then, if sufficiently provoked, to reveal them, is it not so? I do not doubt that he intends as much when and if the time seems right but I also trust that loyal Americans in government heroically denied him some insights during the long dark night of his shameful ascendency. His era and, I trust, the entirety of that which countenanced the empowering of him, his factoti and the tawdry Clintons, will someday soon be seen for the bizarre interlude it was.
Some past Presidents yet participated in our national life. T. Roosevelt did but there can be no doubt of his love for his country. The radical left in the U.S. was a despised faction then, blowing up San Franciscan squares and inspiring O'Neill plays; it took the monumentally naive boomers to make of the New (and Old) left a palatable (after a "regert"able" fashion) political force. We boomers are on an inexorable slippery temporal slope now and one can hope that the exit of our predominate ( but certainly not definitive) ingrate faction will restore sanity to our polity.
Oh do pontificate away Barack. I'm reminded thereby of the scene in the film Ed Wood where the spent character of Bela Lugosi thrashes in pathetic futility in a pool of muddy water. Jack
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)