Wyoming Libraries and SafeLibraries Logos

Here is the new Wyoming Libraries logo of what looks like a Playboy bunny reading a book:


Here is the SafeLibraries logo/parody of the typical library street sign of an open book/reader, but having a Playboy bunny:

What do Wyoming libraries and SafeLibraries have in common? A sense of humor! "We are using bumper stickers in the libraries as a way to bring an element of humor to libraries and make them more interesting to residents who do not normally use the library." And the "favicon" for SafeLibraries, as enlarged above, is perfect for libraries that sing the American Library Association anthem.

I see the two logos as being near mirror images of each other, with both demonstrating a sense of humor. Way to go, Wyoming Libraries!

Wyoming residents, go get your free access to the ChiltonLibrary auto repair database. I'm jealous!

(Hat tip to James Taranto for bring this to my attention in "A Kerfuffle Over a Flap," James Taranto, Wall Street Journal - Best of the Web, 24 March 2009, citing to "Library's Mudflap Girl Campaign Turns Heads," by Matt Joyce (AP), Casper Star-Tribune, 23 March 2009.)

.

Homeless Children and Banned Books

What do homeless children and banned books have in common? Homeless children are promoted by the National Center on Family Homelessness, "[a] group whose raison d'être is homelessness [and who] has an obvious interest in exaggerating the extent of the problem." See "Double Trouble? The Majority of 'Homeless' Children Live in Homes," by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal—Best of the Web, 10 March 2009.

Similarly, "banned books" are promoted by the American Library Association [ALA] whose "Office for Intellectual Freedom's" [OIF] raison d'être is ensuring children maintain access to inappropriate materials that may be kept from them legally. The OIF has "an obvious interest in exaggerating the extent of the problem." For example, one time the ALA claimed racism when parents attempted to "ban" a book that included bestiality from a public school. Why racism? Because, according to the ALA, the author was black and the parents were using bestiality as an excuse to remove a book by a black author.

It's worse. Sadly, there are actually homeless children in the USA, though vastly fewer than the media reports. Regarding "banned books," that stopped occurring in the USA many decades ago. In other words, books are no longer banned, and there's no further need for National Hogwash Week (a.k.a. Banned Books Week or BBW).

So what homeless children and "banned books" have in common is that they are both used for propaganda purposes by motivated organizations that use fancy language, twisted definitions, and statistics to hide the truth from the public.

Anyway, that's my observation upon reading the James Taranto article. Does anyone else see what I see?

.

James Taranto Mocks ALA Ethics And Rightly So; ALA Leadership "Blatantly Violates Ethics"

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal mocks the American Library Association's [ALA] apparent lack of adherence to its own Code of Ethics of the ALA. Despite claims of patron confidentiality, a library must have leaked information about USAir hero pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Mr. Taranto calls this a "blatant violation of the ALA's ethics."

He then cleverly illustrates the ALA's ridiculous use of "slippery slope" arguments that are used to, for example, justify why librarians should allow children access to sexually inappropriate material or why libraries should allow computers to display p0rn despite local interests:

Now, we know what you're thinking: Surely in this case an exception is in order. Revealing the story didn't do Sullenberger any harm, and it was an inspiration to us all. But this is a slippery slope. Today it's Sullenberger, tomorrow no one's privacy will be safe. Maybe the next victim will be some innocent terrorist checking out books on how to make bombs, or a poor pervert who just wants to look at porn. Once you start cutting ethical corners, you're on the way to total moral breakdown. ("This Looks Like a Job for Patrick Fitzgerald," by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal—Best of the Web, 5 February 2009.)

Bravo, Mr. Taranto!

But, Mr. Taranto, the ALA has already decried the violation of a 9/11 terrorist's privacy when de facto ALA leader Judith Krug said she wished library privacy laws had been respected after a Florida librarian reported the terrorist to the police. 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.

And do not forget the library employee fired and the library patron kicked out for reporting child p0rnography on library computers.

How's that for "blatant violation of the ALA's ethics"—or maybe the ALA's leadership had no ethics in the first place.

.