Nat Hentoff's Second Column on ALA and Cuba


Steve Fesenmaier writes "Although the American Library Association proclaims its commitment to the "Freedom to Read" everywhere, its leadership abandons Cuba's independent librarians whom Fidel Castro had locked into his gulags, under brutal conditions, because of their courageous insistence that the people of Cuba should also have the freedom to read books the dictatorship has banned. A majority of the ALA's rank-and-file members disagree with their leadership.
To read the complete story — 9r.htm"


Yes, and on this heavily pro-ALA LIS site the issue repeatedly is framed with Blake's arched eyebrow, oh-this-is-so-BORING, "those anti-Castro wingnuts are at it again" treatment. This and the "pro-Internet pornography in libraries" stances are killing the public image of American public libraries.

I take extreme exception to that. That is UNCALLED for!Librarians are not pro-pornography in libraries. They are pro-CHILD-pornography in libraries. Pornography made by gays. Muslim gays. In Nancy Pelosi's office. Further, all such pornography must be distributed at schools along with such ALA literature as "My abortion was SWELL!", "Jesus: Fraud or Freak?" and "Capitalism is t3h SUXXOR."I propose that we all protest the views of Mr. Anonymous Patron like we protest the use of global warming causing fuels in the vehicles of the troops in Iraq, who we hate. The troops. Not the vehicles.ONE WORLD! ONE GOVERNMENT! ALL HAIL THE U.N.!That was SO freeing.

Obviously posting an article about the topic has been a real win for Blake... [my eyebrows are wayyyyy arched].

Except of course...posted by Bibliofuture on Monday March 05, @11:27AMBibliofuture != Blake

Now, Blake, that's not fair. You know that the right-wing becomes terribly confused in the face of actual facts. You should be ashamed of denigrating them for the disability that allows them to deal only with truthiness.

Never said Blake posted it. Madcow said Blake posted it.Now FF, You know that you become terribly confused in the face of actual facts. You should be ashamed of denigrating yourself for the disability that allows you to deal only with truthiness.Blake frames issues on this site, and my characterization of how he frames this issue is correct. Isn't it, Blake?

True enough. But, "the issue repeatedly is framed with Blake's arched eyebrow" in the first post was what I meant to reply to.

Not to confuse you even further, but where, exactly, did I say anything about anybody having posted it?