Castro's Library Pass (Part
II)
By Walter Skold. FrontPageMagazine.com
| October 13, 2005.
Since the ALA's Office of Intellectual
Freedom (OIF) website says the primary audience
for their postings is the general public,
and since readers are encouraged to write
Don Wood with questions, I sent him an e-mail
on June 25 to inquire why the news of Castro's
book burning was not included on the book
burning page he edits?
On June 27th, the esteemed author of Fahrenheit
451, Ray Bradury, was the keynote speaker
at the ALA's annual convention in Chicago.
As a vocal advocate for reading and intellectual
freedom, the ALA is usually able to present
several nationally-acclaimed authors at
their conventions, and it was a coup for
them to have Bradury. On the day he spoke
he made a forceful statement regarding book-burning
in Cuba, but ALA membership never heard
about that from their leaders.
Not wanting to enter into the internal
politics of the ALA, and desiring to speak
only for himself, Bradbury released his
statement to famed civil-libertarian, Nat
Hentoff, later that day. In the story I
wrote for World Net Daily the 28th, I discussed
what the literary icon said:
"I stand against any library or any
librarian anywhere in the world being imprisoned
or punished in any way for the books they
circulate," Bradbury said. "I
plead with Castro and his government to
immediately take their hands off the independent
librarians and release all those librarians
in prison, and to send them back into Cuban
culture to inform the people."
You would think such a strong statement
from the man whose name is synonymous with
book-burning would have inspired his ALA
hosts to support his principled stand, but
then you wouldn't know how the ALA nomenklatura
thinks about Cuba. When I called and asked
for a comment from the leading intellectual
freedom officials there, they could not
be found for two days and all I got was
a press office e-mail which reiterated a
January 2004 policy report, which, I was
reminded, was crafted as a "result
of almost a year of discussion and investigation."
Now that's a pretty strong response, eh,
from the group which claims to be the "voice
of American Libraries." I wondered
if it was also because they do not want
to answer the question, for the same people
can issue indignant and rousing press releases
within the hour when enemies of liberty
like Bush, or Ashcroft, or the Supreme Court
make statements about the Patriot Act or
the filtering of pornography in public school
libraries, or some other front-burner issue
on their multi-million-dollar legal agenda
(which the membership might want to know
isn't doing too well.)
Unfortunatley, the spectacle of fascists
in Cuba torching thousands of books and
personal papers is apparently not even on
the back burner for these folks, who will
drop everything and scream censorship when
a single Mom in Topeka, KS., complains only
that a book promoting gay marriage should
not be mandatory reading for her 4th-grader.
In my story for WorldNet Daily it was noted
that for two days the ALA Press Office could
not find any officials to find whether or
not the ALA was going to join with Bradbury
in his challenge to Castro. The only feedback
I received is one brief, absurd e-mail,
in which Mr. Wood nonchalantly said:
"I and others have attempted to verify
the instances of book burnings in Cuba that
you cite, but we are unable to find any
references to them in legitimate news sources
(e.g., New York Times, Washington Post,
San Francisco Chronicle). Please send me
such sources for your information."
Well, Mr. Wood, I've made a few simple
phone calls since you and various other
officials at the ALA have claimed they are
"investigating" or attempting
to verify these sentencing documents (See
Part 1) from Cuba and I have an answer for
you, sir. In the process I've also found
some other very troublesome claims and statements
about "book burning" on your website.
The trouble starts back in 2003, when the
head of the Independent Libraries of Cuba
had sent an urgent appeal to the ALA in
which she asked them to come to the defense
of that persecuted movement. Despite the
fact that Noam Chomsky, the world's leading
human rights groups, numerous press associations,
hundreds of formerly staunch supporters
of Fidel Castro, including leading members
of the Communist Party in Portugal, Howard
Zinn, Jimmy Carter, and the whole European
Union denounced the arrest and imprisonment
of these dissident librarians, and others
who had been tossed into jail, the ALA referred
the matter to a joint committee!
During the few months that committee looked
into the situation in Cuba, the former president
of the ALA and head of the task force, John
W. Berry, claimed in an e-mail to the ALA
Council that "The International Relations
Office is currently investigating the group
hosting these documents and is examining
the veracity of the documents themselves."
Here are the serious problems with this
claim that ALA committee-members should
be forced by Council members to explain:
1.) I called Mr. Mark Schlakman, who directs
the FSU Center for Center for the Advancement
of Human Rights. Not only did he provide
me with three news articles from major Florida
newspapers, the professional editors and
journalist of which all apparently trusted
validity of the Cuban court documents, but
he also discussed the often-dangerous process
by which these sorts of documents escape
Cuba. Why couldn't Mr. Wood find these press
articles, and if he tried to verify the
disputed documents, why didn't he simply
call FSU like I did?
2.) Mr. Berry said his task force was "investigating"
the FSU center, but officials I spoke to
there have no recollection of anyone from
the ALA calling them to ask about the documents
or how they judged them authentic. Mr. Berry,
who did you ask about this group, Fidel
Castro? How did you examine the veracity
of these documents if you or a staffer never
called the center that released them?
3.) Perhaps something of the zeal of this
task force to get to the bottom of Cuban
crimes is best revealed in this pathetic
fact. Mr. Berry claimed that his task force
looked at reports written by Amnesty International
(AI) and other human rights groups. That's
funny, I called one Holly Ackerman, the
main Cuba researcher for Amnesty International
in the US and herself an academic librarian,
and she said no one from the ALA ever called
her to ask about these documents. What is
worse is this - Ms. Ackerman told me that
she sent a personal letter to the committee
and offered to help them with their investigation
and to answer any questions they had. Guess
what? She told me that no one ever wrote
her back. Essentially, the AI contact in
the US was ignored by this dedicated task
force! Even Ms. Ackerman was astounded,
as she said that at least when groups or
governments don't want AI's help they at
least write back and say thank you for offering!
4.) Without getting into details (for interested
readers can look at the documents and judge
for themselves), but one of the wolves on
this chicken-coop task force asked to look
into Cuban repression is one of the most
zealously Pro-Castro Council members (See
Part IV) in the whole ALA. In his e-mail
debates with fellow ALA Council members
about the "problem" of noisy Cuban
dissidents, Mr. Al Kagan concluded, in direct
contradiction to the Amnesty Report, that
the best way "to influence the situation
in Cuba is to call for a repeal of US sanctions
and the Helms-Burton Act."
In another sterling recommendation that
shows his true loyalties, Mr. Kagan neglected
to mention that AI called on Cuba to immediately
release the jailed librarians, and he urged
the ALA Council that the answer was "Really
quite simple," as he went on to assert
they needed more "mutually beneficial
contacts" with the "main Cuban
library organization." Folks, this
is the very same State-run group (See Part
III) whose leaders came to the ALA Toronto
meeting in June of 2004 and said the independent
librarians had been duly jailed for plotting
with the CIA, and that Amnesty International
usually lies when it comes to Cuba! Yet
these are the very people that one of the
ALA's top Cuba "investigators"
looks to for reliability?
Now, beside this very worrisome indication
of the thoroughness and legitimacy of the
ALA's own "investigation," an
issue which should be addressed by ALA members
if they care about the ALA's credibility,
there is the issue of the veracity of the
book burning reports to return to.
First, Mr. Wood, Mrs. Ackerman spent 30
minutes explaining the detailed, careful
and sometimes dangerous process by which
the International Secretariat of AI goes
about verifying documents like those smuggled
from Cuba. She said the organization would
never have concluded that these 75 people
were prisoners of conscience if they did
not have full confidence that the documents
were authentic copies. She explained that
because of intelligence officers infiltrating
groups like the independent libraries, there
is much danger, as well as disinformation,
when it comes to information coming from
Cuba. Also, the sources which AI have actually
risk their freedom by helping to smuggle
such documents out, so I ask you Mr. Wood,
do you trust the legitimacy of these documents
now, even though the New York Times doesn't
care about book burning in Cuba either?
Secondly, you demanded from my colleagues
and me at FREADOM articles from "legitimate"
papers and now I have at least three of
them. One of them is an editorial about
the documents from the September 6, 2003
issue of the Sun-Sentinel, which include
this:
"The charges, not the dissidents'
actions, are what is criminal. No human
being, in any country on this planet, should
be jailed for one second, let alone decades,
for voicing an opinion."
It seems pretty clear that Mr. Wood trusts
the editorial judgments of this paper because
jut two weeks ago he alerted his IFACTION
readers about the story from the Sun-Sentinel
in which a local library director caved
into pressure by a Cuban-American Democrat
official to change the date of a showing
of the movie "Motorcycle Diaries,"
which glorifies the mass murderer, Che.
Now, even though the movie was not banned,
nor burned, but merely moved to a different
date, I would agree that this kind of behavior
violates the spirit of clause six of the
ALA's Library Bill of Rights, which says:
"Libraries which make exhibit spaces
and meeting rooms available to the public
they serve should make such facilities available
on an equitable basis, regardless of the
beliefs or affiliations of individuals or
groups requesting their use."
But Mr. Wood, there are those of us who
wonder how you choose what is fit news to
print for your own readers, especially in
light of what the ALA's Freedom To Read
statement affirms in paragraph 1: "It
is in the public interest for publishers
and librarians to make available the widest
diversity of views and expressions, including
those that are unorthodox, unpopular, or
considered dangerous by the majority."
How is it that you pick up news stories
like this one about such injustice against
the legacy of dear Che, but you missed this
July 3rd editorial in the Chattanooga Times
Free Press, which took issue with the ALA's
track record on Cuba by pointing out:
"The librarians' silence has to do
with the lingering romantic attachment of
the American left to communism in general
and Fidel Castro in particular. "The
Motorcycle Diaries," the glowing movie
about the young Che Guevara, is the current
horrible example. The romantic left never
would do a similar film about a young Nazi.
Guevara killed a lot of people and dreamed
of slaughtering more. How about "On
the Road With Adolf"? Let's not dwell
too much on what came after."
Could this particular lack of unorthodox
or unpopular stories about Cuba found in
your daily IFACTION alert have something
to do with the sources you choose to inform
people about? To test that theory I analyzed
three recent logs that I picked out randomly
in the IFACTION archives list, and I found
these sources; readers can decide on their
own about any bias therein.
Certainly Mr. Wood is not an outright censor
of all things Conservative or libertarian
or Christian, as I did find these stories:
one from the Washington Times about a boy
not being able to read his Bible in school;
one about a Conservative librarian; one
about academic freedom from the Christian
Science Monitor; and one about a Freedom
House study on how civil society movements
help bring democracy to nations (the same
Freedom House some of his colleagues vilify,
Part III).
The majority of stories came from the New
York Times, and after that, his most trusted
source is Alter Net (which says of its totally
left-wing news service "Without qualified
editors to evaluate material and make it
easier for users to find and act upon it,
the public interest information people want
and need will continue to be marginalized.")
Besides these two major sources (although
some would think it quite a stretch to consider
Alter Net "major") here is a random
list of the publications which Mr. Wood
choose to send important information from
about "intellectual freedom: Village
Voice, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, Air America Radio, Democratic
Underground, The Nation, People for the
American Way, Fairness & Accuracy In
Reporting, ThomasPaine.com, The Progressive,
and, well, need I go on?
But getting back to the issue of burned
books in Cuba, now that a fellow librarian
has provided him with several reliable sources,
as well as information from the head researcher
for Amnesty International, whose phone number
I'll gladly give him, I wonder if he will
now add the incidents of fanatical communist
book burning in Cuba to the OIF public-service
website? In the first part of this series
I said that ALA officials seemingly have
no problem censoring such information. If
nothing is added to the website, and no
credible reason is given as to why the sources
I cite are themselves wrong, then the public
would sadly have to conclude that the ALA
wants to censor this information.
The valid concerns about censorship, self-censorship
and hysteria within the ranks of those nationally-respected
officials who make up the lists of banned
books for the rest of the public, do not
end with Herr Fidel. (Indeed, see this minority
library blogger (meaning white, male, and
conservative) for how the game works)
Since Mr. Wood made it clear to FREADOM
inquiries the he judges WND an unreliable
news source, I did a little digging into
the links cited by Mr. Wood and found that
some burned books don't even need to burn.
For the first example we can see that Cuba
is indeed mentioned on the ALA book-burning
page, but only in reference to this April
6th story about US soldiers 'mishandling"
the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. Not only does
the story finally conclude, if one reads
it, that "The inquiry found "no
credible evidence" that a member of
the military joint task force at Guantanimo
ever flushed a Koran down a toilet,"
there is something even more disturbing
about this link (put up on the same day
of release, mind you).
Nowhere, not once, nada, never, not anywhere
in the text is anything whatsoever at all
- zilch - mentioned that talks about any
charges of book burning!!!! Why on earth
is the story there on that page in the first
place?
The second example of false charges of
book burning on the OIF page is this story,
about a charge against a group of Christian
parents who were concerned that their kids
were being forced to read a book which they
felt promoted paganism. Looking further
into the story, the more authoritative Rocky
Mountain News reported that "The books
weren't burned, as had been reported
Instead,
about two dozen copies were turned over
to the Olivers to be destroyed."
Given the conflicting accounts, and the
seriousness of the charges of book burning,
I called Katharynn Heidelberg, the editor
of the Montrose Press, which initially ran
the story that Don posted, and she confirmed
to me that in fact it turned out that the
books were not burned. Apparently, imagine
this; someone had lied to make the Conservative
parents look worse.
I agreed with Mrs. Heidelberg when she
said "Still, they were taken to the
dump and destroyed, and that isn't much
better," but the fact remains that
no one raided the school library lighting
matches as they ran.
As for trusting content from Alter Net,
here is their moral panic about a book burning
that turns out was only in their overheated
left-wing brains. On June 25, Mr. Wood posted
a link to this AlterNet story with the subject
heading "Burning Books."
The AlterNet editorial blurb which caught
Mr. Wood's ear was "Uber-conservative
online magazine Human Events Online has
the Top 10 Most Harmful Books ever,"
but if you actually follow the link to the
story, you find that there was absolutely
never, once again nada, no and nyet, any
discussion whatsoever of burning books in
it. The story was about the 10 most-dangerous
books which picked the brains of leading
conservative academics. Where is the book
burning here Mr. Wood?
Now the reader can get a better understanding
of what Alter Net means about themselves
when they claim that "Public interest
websites need an infomediary to steer like-minded
people to their content." Like-minded?
BINGO - They hit the ideological hammer
and sickle right on the head!
So just to review this astoundingly bizarre
situation, we have a situation where one
of the intellectual freedom Tzars at the
ALA refuses to post news of the books burned
in Cuba, but he then goes ahead and posts
links to articles about "book burning"
which have no factual foundation. He seems
content to condone or promote inflammatory
judgments about the US military, Conservative
parents, and academic scholars who dissent
from mainstream liberal opinion, yet he
puts a lid on the fires of repression that
are smoldering in Cuba.
In light of this hypocrisy and different
levels of zeal in authenticating sources,
I can only conclude that in the eyes of
ALA elites, "All book burners are equal,
but some are more equal than others."
Since the editors of FRONTPAGE believe
in academic freedom, I'm sure they would
be happy to give Mr. Wood an opportunity
to explain why book burning and library
destruction in Cuba is not a human rights
or censorship issue.
And let me be clear again, I am not talking
about the large majority of conscientious
public librarians who work for their communities
every day. I am referring to the talking
heads at the pinnacle of ALA bureaucracies
who lecture the rest of us about "censorship."
If people think that our constitutional
liberties rely on the judgment of these
folks, then you better work hard for the
preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights
for these Castro-coddlers would gladly trade
them away for a more just, equitable, and
cohesive America.
In the meantime, I have another great idea
for celebrating the end of banned books
week, other than reading "The Black
Book of Communism," (if your local
library hasn't censored that too). Until
Mr. Wood and the other staff make up their
collective minds as whether or not they
are going to add Cuba to their burned book
page, while removing the false charges of
book burning that remain there, here is
something fun you can do to show these guardians
of our liberties just how much you appreciate
their unbiased pursuit of intellectual freedom
abuses.
Given the nature of some of the information
they recommend for the public, here is a
gift that should really come in handy.
O yes, one last thing about the burned
book site that's a bit too humorous to pass
bye. The link to "Tortured Logic"
is no longer valid.
[This is Part II of a
four-part series concerning the American
Library Association's pandering to Fidel
Castro's totalitarian regime. Click here
to read Part I. - The Editors]
Copyright©2005
FrontPageMagazine.com
|