Saturday, March 26, 2011

Library Pron Causes Suicidal Thoughts; Testimony Supports Idaho Library Filtering Legislation

Click for 2011 Idaho HB 205
Pron viewed on library computers nearly destroys a high school student:
Jared Smith, a student at BYU Idaho, spoke in support of the bill.  Smith testified to having seen [pron]ographic images on three different occasions on computers at a library he worked at in high school.  Seeing those images and not knowing how to deal with them at a young age turned him into a [pron] addict.  “I was turned into a [pron]ographic addict.  I had thoughts of suicide, and I was in my own personal hell,” he said.  Smith claims that research has shown that overexposure to [pron]ography damages the brain.  According to Smith, he has had counseling and continues to improve.  He predicts it will take around 10 years to fully recover from his addiction.
Source: "Technology Protection Bill for Libraries Sent to Amending Order," by Mitch Coffman,, 24 March 2011.

His testimony helped support library filtering legislation in Idaho (HB 205).  Click for more on "research ... show[ing] that overexposure to [pron]ography damages the brain."  Perhaps he should consider suing the library for damages.  (Contact me, Jared, if you wish to hear more about this.)

Isn't it sad the librarians involved tried to stop the legislation?  An amendment has made the legislation weaker, so the librarians are now willing to allow the weakened bill to pass.

Why do librarians think they know better than Idaho citizens (like Citizens for Decency)?  Read the article.  The librarians oppose the legislation.  The pron victims support the legislation.  Why is that?  Aren't librarians supposed to serve the public, not serve pron?  (Read the library pron removal roadmap.)  Could it be the claims of loss of local control are false since the legislation is needed precisely to allow citizens to stop librarians from forcing their anything goes views on local communities?

Click for more on this state CIPA legislation in Idaho.


Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Will the ALA Oppose Economic Terrorism? Stephen Lerner of the SEIU Spells Out Battle Plans Against America, a Perfect Non-Library Issue for the ALA to Sink Its Teeth Into

Click to watch:
Official Reveals Secret
Plan To Destroy
JP Morgan
The American Library Association [ALA] takes on many non-library issues, often with the excuse that library patrons or librarians are affected by the non-library issues.  Patrons, librarians, and libraries themselves will certainly be directly and negatively affected by the economic terrorism about to be unleashed on the United States, allegedly.

Will the ALA take a position against this?  Here are media reports of the words of people planning to bring an end to the American way of life as we know it:

MMfA Agrees:  Economic Terrorism
Even George Soros-supported Media Matters for America admits "[c]alling for strikes and civil disobedience is tantamount to 'economic terrorism'...."

Will the George Soros-supported ALA speak out against this economic terrorism to protect patrons, librarians, and libraries?  Let's look at other non-library issues the ALA addresses.  The ALA:

All this from a "library" association that, in reality, changed over 40 years ago with the influence of the ACLU—even ALA members can't stand the ALA's political tilt.  Anyone see a pattern?

I thought this would be a perfect non-library issue for the ALA to sink its teeth into, precisely because there will be no more libraries, no more ALA, if the economic terrorism succeeds as planned.  Anyone think the ALA will oppose economic terrorism?


See also: "Steve Lerner's Plan," by Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, 23 March 2011.


See also: "Glenn Beck, Economic Terrorist; The Fox Bully's Crusade Against Progressives Who Want to Fix the Economy is Getting Ridiculous," by Joan Walsh, Salon, 23 March 2011.

This Salon article is remarkable as it supports the economic destruction of the United States, "I certainly endorse Lerner's analysis," and does so in part by using personal attack on those reporting on the imminent economic terrorism, among other techniques used to get people to look the other way.

The personal attack path is not unremarkable.  Indeed here's a story pointing out how Media Matters "resort[ed] to an ad hominen [sic] attack on Beck": "The Sound of Silence: Media Ignores Stephen Lerner's Revolutionary Plan to Bring Down US Economy," by Emily Esfahani Smith, The Blaze, 23 March 2011. (I note this Blaze article, in my opinion, indirectly refers to this SafeLibraries blog post as part of a "handful of opinion blogs" that discussed the Stephen Lerner speech.)

How does his relate to the ALA?  The ALA uses personal attack to smear people as well so as to distract others from the real issues.  For just one example, consider how the ALA labeled every single person who complied with ALA directives to file material reconsideration complaints as censors.

Birds of a feather....


Now that plans to try to destroy the United States as being united under the US Constitution are coming to fruition, the Progressive Librarians Guild has decided to join in:

From: Mark C. Rosenzweig []
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:58 AM
To: plgnet; Council srrt; mem; biblio-progresistas
Subject: [member-forum] Progressive Librarians Guild Supports "Occupy Wall Street"

PLG statement on Occupy Wall Street -  10/06/11

The Progressive Librarians Guild supports the initiative of the Occupy Wall Street protest and the movement it has sparked, with manifestations all across the U.S.

We applaud the commitment and creativity being shown in providing a space for the articulation of opposition to the whole apparatus of the one-sided class war against workers, unions, the poor, immigrants, minorities, people of color, women, students and other sectors which make up the vast majority of Americans. We applaud the movement's resistance to the greed,,injustice and inequality which is corroding the fabric of American society  and its desire to imagine and help build a better future ,starting right now , for all Americans, by freeing ourselves from the destructive grip of unaccountable elites , insatiable profiteers and ruthless and cynical corporate plunderers.

We note that the Occupy Wall Street community has seen the need to create a "library" as part of its essential infrastructure even under the very difficult conditions under which the occupation has to operate in the streets. We call upon members of the Progressive Librarians Guild and all librarians of conscience to assist the movement with resources and technical aid. Please support the Occupation movement, document its development and report back to the library community to encourage greater understanding and wider support among our colleagues and in our communities.

PLG Coordinating Committee

Here is a better picture of what these librarians actively support that supposedly Occupy Wall Street "sparked":

Now the ALA can no longer remain silent as the Progressive Librarians Guild has dragged it into the frey with all its violence, hatred, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, queer kids kill your parents, etc.  Will the ALA speak out?  I'll wager it will join in.

Oh look, there's AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka visiting the Occupy Wall Street library the Progressive Librarians Guild supports.

If the USA becomes Marxist as a result of what is happening now and everyone suffers as a result or are murdered by the millions as happens in such societies and has already been planned for the USA, the ALA will happily change its name to the MLA and won't mind missing a few million library patrons.


Monday, March 21, 2011

ALA Promotes Red-Green Alliance and Is a Leftist Anti-War Group Supporting Radical Islamist Terror

The American Library Association promotes the Red-Green alliance?  Is it a leftist "anti-war" group supporting radical Islamist terror?  Do libraries censor out the politically incorrect and promote the opposite?  I advise, you surmise:
    As Osama Bin Laden himself noted: "The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders."


    The groups listed here are all listed at Discover the Networks as leftist "anti-war" groups with radical agendas and appear as signatories on a recent letter authored by one of the groups, the ACLU, protesting the hearings on radicalization.  Though these organizations do not focus solely on an 'anti-war' agenda, they are lead players in the so-called "anti-war" movement, paving the way for smaller groups that make all the noise, like Code Pink.


    Librarians?  You betcha.  The American Library Association (ALA) is the "oldest and largest library association in the world" with 61,043 members in America and abroad.  The ALA is anti-Israel, opposes the Patriot Act and actively works against anti-terrorism measures.


    While refusing to acknowledge any threat from within the Muslim community, ALA has falsely accused Israel of destruction of "Palestinian" libraries, and even reserves the right to make such false accusations despite proof that they are false.  In the view of the ALA, then, Islamists are above scrutiny while Israel may be blamed even for good intentions.


    If you are providing support for your local library, you may want to check to see if they are supporting ALA.  Your money could be used by this organization to undermine America’s efforts to prevent terrorism.

    Having read that, get a load of this eye opener on library censorship.  The author comments on the Lisa Graas post quoted above then adds revealing information about library censorship:
    This hit home because my late mother was an ALA member, and saw which way the organization was heading.  When I googled my mother's name with the ALA, I found two local publications of the Boston chapter, one announcing her initial employment by the Boston Public Library, and the second announcing her transfer to a different branch.

    My mother was a big supporter of local libraries and was forever advocating for our local suburb to build a good public library - which they did long after my brother and I could have benefited from it.  But for the last 25 years or so of her career, she was employed at a local community college, where she was constantly spending money from her own pocket to buy books that gave a more balanced view on Israel to counteract her radical Leftist boss who was constantly buying pro-'Palestinian' books using the library's budget.

    I've mentioned before on this blog that both my parents were (and my father still is) knee0jerk Democratic voters.  But the ALA is obviously much more radical since my parents were Democrats but were (and my father still is) strongly pro-Israel.  I guess Mom's boss was much more in line with the librarians' thinking.


    Read the whole thing.  (Yes, the rest of it is just as exhaustively researched).

    Given what I just wrote about the ALA ("ALA Joins CAIR to Oppose Radicalization Hearings Sponsored by Congressman Pete King"), I believe the material presented above about the ALA is largely accurate.  However, some of the support for certain statements is a little dated and does not include more recent information, like the George Soros money flooding into the ALA.  I do not know about the remaining non-ALA subject matter.

    See also Librarians For Fairness

    What do you think?  Does the ALA promote the Red-Green alliance?  Is it a leftist "anti-war" group supporting radical Islamist terror, as Lisa reports?  Do you think libraries buy materials they support politically and censor out those they do not, as Carl reports?  Do you think the ALA includes books having "a more balanced view on Israel" being kept out of libraries in its Banned Books Week hoax?  Please comment below.

    "If you are providing support for your local library, you may want to check to see if they are supporting ALA.  Your money could be used by this organization to undermine America’s efforts to prevent terrorism."


    Monday, March 14, 2011

    Past ALA Prez Defames Scott Walker As a Murderer

    American Library Association [ALA] Past-President Michael Gorman has labeled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker a murderer.  Isn't that defamation per se?  (The ALA officially supports union rights: "Look For the Union Label at the ALA.")

    The graphic at right shows others who have made false claims of murder and had to answer for them, like Jack Murtha.  How is what Michael Gorman said about Scott Walker any different from a defamation perspective?

    See if you agree with my opinion based on the following Library Journal article, hyperlinks mine:

    "Wisconsin Librarians' March Merges with Tractorcade," by Sharon McQueen, Library Journal, 14 March 2011:

    In a show of support to the librarians' march, as well as in tribute to the Wisconsin labor rights struggle in general, American Library Association past president Michael Gorman drafted new lyrics (see below) for "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night," entitled "Scott Walker's Nightmare."
    (A long way after "Joe Hill")

    I dreamed I saw some unionists
    Striding down our way.
    "Guys," said I, "You're ten days dead."
    "We never died" said they,
    "We never died," said they.

    "But Scott Walker killed you guys,
    He smashed you up," said I.
    "Takes more than jerks to kill us off,"
    Said they "We didn't die,"
    Said they "We didn't die."

    They were standing there as big as life
    And smiling with their eyes.
    Said they "What they can never kill,
    Go on to organize,
    Go on to organize!"

    From Eau Claire down to Fond du Lac
    In every working hall
    Where unionists defend their rights
    It's there you'll find us all,
    It's there you'll find us all!

    I dreamed I saw some unionists
    Striding down our way.
    "Guys," said I, "You're ten days dead."
    "We never died" said they,
    "We never died," said they.

    Michael Gorman

    Maybe "Scott Walker's Nightmare" will rightfully become Michael Gorman's nightmare, only 7x24x365.

    NOTE ADDED 9 JUNE 2012:

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011

    ALA Joins CAIR to Oppose Radicalization Hearings Sponsored by Congressman Pete King

    ALA Joins CAIR to
    Oppose Radicalization Hearings
    The American Library Association [ALA] has joined with the Council On American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to oppose Congressman Pete King's congressional hearings to "show [the] extent of radicalization in [the] Muslim American community."  For proof, read the ACLU press release and letter to Rep. King.

    What is CAIR that the ALA should align with it?  According to Rep. Pete King, "to me it's a badge of honor to be attacked by CAIR which was named as a, uh, unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist financing case."  Similarly, a group called Anti-CAIR says, "Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, founded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America."

    Here is more about the radicalization hearings:

    Exactly what is the ALA doing opposing radicalization hearings?  Do the hearings have anything to do with libraries?  Exactly why is the ALA joining CAIR in this effort?

    Concerns being raised here are about the ALA and whether it should be viewed as authoritative in local communities when the facts show it appears to support terrorists or at least be sympathetic.  For example, when an actual 9/11 terrorist's presence in a Florida library was revealed to the authorities by a librarian, the ALA's de facto leader said she wished the librarian had followed library patron confidentiality laws and not reported the incident.  See:  "A Nation Challenged: Questions of Confidentiality; Competing Principles Leave Some Professionals Debating Responsibility to Government" by David E. Rosenbaum, The New York Times, 23 November 2001.  I would call that supporting terrorists, wouldn't you?

    In addition, consider the following previous posts of mine on the ALA's affinity for terrorists:
    As SafeLibraries, I take no official position on Rep. Pete King, the radicalization hearings, CAIR, or any issue unrelated to libraries or the ALA.  Indeed, I have been told by members of the Islamic community that my goal of advising communities about protecting children from harm completely aligns with Islamic goals in that regard and that I should consider fund raising in mosques. 

    Freedom to Read Foundation
    I am solely addressing the ALA's actions in jumping on board yet another non-library issue and its actions in joining an organization such as CAIR in seeking to prevent the disclosure of national security-related information.  This from the self-arrogated freedom of speech people.  Suddenly, freedom of speech is no longer of interest to the ALA.

    The ACLU's letter says, "Holding hearings ... will ... chill ... free speech."  So does opposing the hearings.  The ALA opposing the hearings despite its claimed support for free speech is ironic.  Apparently, its political interests outweigh its claimed interest in First Amendment rights.  It is yet another ALA double standard.

    Even librarians abhor the ALA when it takes on non-library issues:

    And yes, the National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC] is joining the ALA and CAIR in seeking to censor the hearings.  Like the ALA, the NCAC is another organization that tells local communities to keep their children reading inappropriate material.

    I believe American citizens need to consider whether they wish the ALA to have the influence it does in local public libraries.  The ALA may have political interests that communities may oppose.  Such interests may shed light on existing ALA-inspired local library policies.   Whose interests is the ALA actually promoting?

    NOTE ADDED 10 MARCH 2011:

    This blog post has been linked here:

    "American Library Association Supports Muslim Brotherhood-linked CAIR Against Rep King's Counter Terror Hearings," by Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs, 9 March 2011:

    This is what it must have looked like in pre-war Nazi Germany.  One after another, they all fall down.

    The ALA is the same craven organization that cave and cancelled Robert Spencer in 2009 after Hamas-linked CAIR demanded adherence to Islamic law.  "Do not defame or insult Islam."  The ALA accomdoates the sharia.

    Check this out from SafeLibraries....

    And that comment received this response from another George Soros funded organization:

    "Geller Compares Opposition To Muslim Radicalization Hearings To 'Pre-War Nazi Germany,'" by Matt Gertz, Media Matters for America, 10 March 2011.


    Tuesday, March 8, 2011

    Teen Library Volunteer Raped in Library Bathroom

    "Library Sexual Assault Trial Starts Tuesday," by Dayna Worchel, Tyler Morning Telegraph, 2 March 2011:
    Library Sexual Assault Trial Starts Tuesday
    Staff Writer
    The 17-year-old who said she was sexually assaulted last summer in the men's restroom of the Troup Municipal Library told a Smith County jury on Tuesday that following a Tyler man there at his request "was not a smart thing to do."
    Brandon Deonteri Prestidge, 25, who is charged with sexual assault of a child under 16, is accused of fondling and then raping the young girl, who was 16 at the time, after he asked her to follow him into the restroom.  The sexual assault allegedly happened inside of a locked stall where the girl said Prestidge, who was then 23, took her after he heard a noise outside of the restroom door.

    The teenager, who was volunteering at the library on July 31, described the sexual assault in detail to the jury, saying she knew that what was happening to her was "inappropriate" and "wrong" and that she did not want the assault to happen.
    After the incident, the girl testified that she went into the women's restroom to clean herself and left the library without telling anyone there what happened.

    Under cross examination, Haley asked the girl why she did not tell anyone at the library or the police what had happened to her.
    "I wasn't thinking about that, I just wanted to get away," she responded.
    The girl said she knew it was wrong, but she didn't know why she didn't tell Prestidge to stop.  "When I left the men's room, I felt like it was my fault," she testified.

    I am still investigating whether this library rape is related to library policy and/or computer usage.  The media reports I have seen make no mention one way or another.  And the library's web site is sparse.  Only the following is of possible relevance:  "The library will not restrict a patron's access to library materials due to age."  That is a sure sign the library follows American Library Association [ALA] diktat and may be an anything-goes library, though it does not have to be that way.

    In the meantime, the above story caught my attention, and I am aware of potentially significant background information that I simply cannot source at the moment, so I will not publish it now.

    I am certain the ALA will do absolutely nothing to assist the teenage library volunteer rape victim or others similarly situated.  Neither will it even bother to write about it anywhere.  The ALA has not responded to a call to start tracking library crime—tracking parents who try to keep children from inappropriate material is what's important to the ALA.  See "Banned Books Week Versus Library Crime; Call for the ALA to Track Library Crime," 17 August 2009. 

    And let Texas try to correct an imbalance in public education, then suddenly the ALA comes alive, even using plagiarism to get involved in a non-library matter.  See "ALA Double Standard on Accuracy in Texas State Board of Education Proposal on School Book Content; ALA President Plagiarizes to Promote Matter Outside ALA Purview," 18 May 2010.

    In contrast, a teen library volunteer raped in a library bathroom?  ALA says: "Yawn."  Please.  The ALA even tried to cover up another library child rape.  See, "ALA Whitewashes Rape and Blames Child; Removes Discussion of ALA's Possible Culpability for Rape," 4 April 2009. 

    Troup, Texas?  You are on your own.


    Tuesday, March 1, 2011

    Teachers Need Collective Bargaining to Override Courts and Local Boards So School Children May Access Material Otherwise Unfit For School Curricula, Says NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman

    NYU Professor Jonathan Zimmerman
    Collective bargaining by public teacher unions is now being recommended by New York University Professor Jonathan Zimmerman as the means to override courts and local school boards so school children may access material unfit for school curricula.

    Let that sink in.  In the midst of the current public union power grab, that the American Library Association [ALA] supports, by the way, some professor is actually suggesting teachers unions should have the power to use collective bargaining as the means to remove the power of school boards and school superintendents or even the courts to set course curricula.  Local control?  Wiped out.  Safe libraries?  Gone.  You will do as the public unions say and you will submit your children to their control.  David Horowitz is right.

    The court case the professor specifies as needing to be overcome with collective bargaining is discussed in my previous post entitled, "Court Backs Local School Control in Evans-Marshall v Board of Education; ALA Loses Another Means to Propagandize Local Communities."

    Zimmerman, a former public school teacher, derides the judicial system as a means to promote collective bargaining:
    • "'The right to free speech ... does not extend to the in-class curricular speech of teachers in primary and secondary schools,' the court declared.  That's why teachers still need collective bargaining, which lies at the heart of this winter's bitter battles over public-employee unions."  
    • "Alas, our courts have lost sight of the difference."  
    • "Now that the courts have gutted teachers' academic freedom, however, the only way they can retain it will be via collective bargaining."

    With teachers like Dee Venuto, imagine what would happen if public teachers unions began dictating what will be taught in public schools:  "School Media Specialist Passes Sexual Content Review to Students; Dee Venuto Says It Is Discrimination to Keep Children From Material Including Lengthy, Vivid Descriptions of a MĂ©nage a Trois."

    See that graphic saying "boy to man" showing people having anal sex and two Boy Scouts looking on?  Dee Venuto cried to her students when the book containing that graphic was removed from the Rancocas Valley Regional High School despite her calls to the ALA for support.

    What, Professor Zimmerman, does that graphic have to do with "teaching democracy"?  How will that help children to "reason, criticize, and debate"?  Why is Dee Venuto still making over $85K per year, not including benefits, when she stated in a New Jersey Education Association magazine that she cannot perform the job for which she was hired, instead leaving book selection to students, thereby exposing them to inappropriate material?  Better yet, why will public teacher unions be better at deciding what's best for children than school boards, school superintendents, and the courts that back them up? 

    Professor Zimmerman is essentially arguing that school children should access material that a court or a school board or superintendent would preclude or remove for being unfit for any class curriculum, and that the means to force this on local communities is with public union collective bargaining agreements.

    That aligns with the ALA policy of unlimited access for children despite numerous court cases saying otherwise.  No wonder the anything-goes ALA sent a link to Zimmerman's article to hundreds of its members.  By the way, the ALA is using George Soros funding to produce and distribute a "privacy" curriculum for school grades K-12.

    Read this for yourself to see why I have reached the opinion I have.  It's unbelievable:

    The ProFessors, by
    David Horowitz
    In 2001, high school English teacher Shirley Evans-Marshall gave her class a copy of the American Library Association's "100 Most Frequently Challenged Books."  She asked her students to choose a book on the list and explain why it was controversial.

    But the assignment itself was too controversial for Evans-Marshall's Ohio school district, which declined to renew her contract.

    Evans-Marshall sued, claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights.  And last year, a federal appeals court ruled that she didn't have any - at least not in her own classroom.

    "The right to free speech ... does not extend to the in-class curricular speech of teachers in primary and secondary schools," the court declared.

    That's why teachers still need collective bargaining, which lies at the heart of this winter's bitter battles over public-employee unions.

    But the plight of Evans-Marshall also speaks to the unique role of school teachers in a democracy.

    Unlike the other workers that you see protesting outside of state capitols, teachers are charged with instructing young Americans about their responsibilities and rights as citizens.  That won't happen if we hamstring teachers' own rights, by lumping them together with everybody else.

    Yet that's precisely what our courts have done.  The ruling in Shirley Evans-Marshall's case relied on the 2006 Supreme Court decision Garcetti v. Ceballos, which said that public workers have no First Amendment rights when they are speaking as part of their "official duties."  The state hires the worker to deliver a message, the court said, so the state can also discipline employees who deviate from it.

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    That might be an appropriate rule for, say, a clerk at the motor vehicles administration.  Not so for a teacher, who is enjoined to help young people learn how to reason, criticize, and debate.  Teachers do not simply work for a democracy; they're supposed to teach it.  And that requires a much greater degree of freedom than other public employees receive.

    Alas, our courts have lost sight of the difference.  So when Indiana teacher Jane Mayer told her class that she had honked her car horn in support of a rally against going to war in Iraq, her school district refused to rehire her.  Invoking Garcetti, a federal appeals court ruled in 2007 that Mayer had no right to deviate from the school-approved curriculum.

    "A teacher hired to lead a social-studies class can't use it as a platform for a revisionist perspective that Benedict Arnold wasn't really a traitor, when the approved program calls him one," the court declared.

    But we should want our teachers to question whether Arnold was a traitor, and whether the war in Iraq is a good idea.  And if the courts won't defend this freedom, then teachers will have to do it themselves.

    That's where collective bargaining agreements come in.  Historically, these agreements have protected teachers' salaries, benefits, and pensions.  Now that the courts have gutted teachers' academic freedom, however, the only way they can retain it will be via collective bargaining.

    But here, too, we're moving in the opposite direction.  In Jane Mayer's native Indiana, the state Senate passed a measure last Tuesday that would limit teachers' negotiating rights to wages and benefits.  In Shirley Evans-Marshall's Ohio, meanwhile, Republicans put forth a bill to end teachers' collective-bargaining rights altogether.  Last Wednesday, they agreed to a revised proposal that would restrict teachers' bargaining to wages.

    The fiercest battleground is still Wisconsin, where all the tumult began.  Early Friday morning, its Assembly passed a bill that would bar collective bargaining by public workers on everything except - you guessed it - their wages.  Now the focus shifts to the Senate, where Democrats have staged a walkout in order to avoid a vote on the measure.

    One objective of these bills is to get workers to contribute more to their health and pension plans, by taking these plans off the negotiating table.  The broader goal is to rein in the breadth and power of public-employee unions, which Republicans charge with putting too great a strain on state coffers.

    They might be right.  And like other public workers, teachers could reasonably decide to make some bread-and-butter concessions in these difficult economic times.  But I hope they will never sign away their freedom in the classroom, or their right to bargain for it.  A teacher cannot live by bread - or butter - alone.  And neither can a democracy.

    Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history at New York University and lives in Narberth.  He is the author most recently of "Small Wonder:  The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory" (Yale University Press).  He can be reached at [© Copyright 2011 Philadelphia Media Network Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reprinting under Copyright Fair Use.]

    NOTE ADDED 5 MARCH 2011:

    If teachers unions take control of public schools as Jonathan Zimmerman is suggesting, then, in addition to the specific Dee Venuto example above, here is a broader story that is directly relevant:
    Let me add that this is the very same National Education Association that recommends members read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  For more on that, see, "NEA Recommends Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals," by A Conservative Teacher, A Conservative Teacher, 12 November 2009.

    And this is funny but true:

    Hat tip:  "Teachers Unions Explained," by West Bend Citizen Advocate, WISSUP = Wisconsin Speaks Up, 5 March 2011.

    NOTE ADDED 7 MARCH 2011:

    "Milwaukee Teachers Drop Viagra Suit," by AP,, 7 March 2011.  "The Milwaukee teachers union has dropped a lawsuit seeking to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back.  ....  Attorneys for the union and school board didn't immediately return messages."


    Active Shooter in the Library: How to Plan for, Prevent, and Survive the Worst (and Selected Bibliography)

    "Active Shooter in the Library: How to Plan for, Prevent, and Survive the Worst (and Selected Bibliography)," by Amy Kautzman and Jennifer Little, Library Leadership & Management, 25:1, p1-4 (2011).

    Table of Contents:
    • What is an Active Shooter?
    • No Surprises
    • Follow Your Gut
    • Write Behavioral Policies
    • Best Practices/Survivor's Mindset
    • Prevention/Change the Ending of the Story
    • Training Plan/Response Plan
    • Collaboration/Partnerships
    • Surviving an Active Shooter Event
    • Conclusion
    • Selected Bibliography