Posts
For example:
- Ginny Maziarka files a complaint with the city attorney, asking for an ethics investigation into the mayor’s and an alderman’s handling of their book challenges. The request isn't properly notarized, and the city attorney tells her to re-submit properly for consideration. Ginny complains loudly, but doesn't take the extra 5 minutes to get her complaint notarized. Nothing ever happens.
- Ever since she lost the Library Board battle, Ginny has been busy with burdening the taxpayers with multiple ORRs, and claimed in July to be amassing a timeline of "oppression" and "covert involvement" of outsiders related to the book challenges, and tweeted that it was "nearing completion". At least two months have passed since this was "nearing completion", and no timeline has been released.
- Ginny's "future plans" state that "With the appointment of a new library board, WBCFSL will be presenting a revised letter of requests for policies, insisting that the citizens of the community be heard on this matter." Three months have passed since the new board's appointment, and no "revised letter" has been submitted.
- Ginny tweets that "West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries getting a NEW NAME". Nearly two weeks have passed, and no new name has materialized (although I have some suggestions).
- And the granddaddy of them all: Ginny's original complaint centered on the lack of "balance" in the library's "Out of the Closet" reading guide. As the issue morphed to include more and more books, as well as supposed obscenities in books, the library sent Ginny notice that, after review with the city attorney, it was determined the nature of her original complaint has changed, and she should submit new reconsideration forms to start the process over again. At her "town meeting", Ginny states: "Since the library has asked us to begin again, we are going to begin again" (at timestamp 21:32 in this video). Later (timestamp 28:05), she tells attendees to "go the extra mile" and to "go to the library, pick up a form, fill it out." Then (timestamp 28:15), she admits that her petition won't be sufficient, and that "I can guarantee you you'll need a formal complaint form." Yet there was no new submissions of reconsideration forms were ever submitted to re-start the process. Instead there were petitions, parades, and countless shouting on her blog.
This is from Fatso's rant about the Notary:
ReplyDelete(City official):
"“Basically, it means a notary (public)” is needed to witness the document, she explained.
(Fatso's analysis - imagine it's red):
Probably because it is so unbelievable that anyone would ever file a complaint, we just have to be sure it's really real.
She has zero understanding of anything apparently. Ginny dear, you need it notarized so it is legally accepted that the complaint indeed came from YOU. Otherwise I could submit a complaint in your name. How long have you lived on Earth? This is the entire reason Notary's EXIST. It is not some conspiracy against you.
Regarding the timeline, any delays are my fault, not Ginny's. I apologize. I simply do not have the resources of the ALA. It's not right to mock Ginny as you have under the circumstances. But it will eventually become public.
ReplyDeleteAbout six years ago the ALA promised to provide guidance to public libraries about how to obtain CIPA funding for filtering. It still has not done so, and actually advises libraries how to skirt the filtering requirement. Indeed West Bend itself has just adhered to such ALA direction. Yet I don't go about making juvenile comments about ALA promises broken.
You have valid points to make, but it is so deeply buried in vitriol, that what little good there is gets drowned out.
The WISSUP post pointed to above as "Ginny complains loudly" is quite revealing, especially in light of today's post about director Tyree and the city ethics code. She seems to be saying that ethics requires public officials not to have an opinion or position on legal matters. Since she's happy to support some politicians who DO have opinions (e.g., Sensenbrenner), she is effectively claiming that ethics codes prevent public officials from having opinions that disagree with hers.
ReplyDeleteThank you, SafeLibraries. We wouldn't want to waste an opportunity to somehow make it the ALA's fault.
ReplyDelete@SafeLibraries: Please provide me the source where the ALA "promised to provide guidance to public libraries about how to obtain CIPA funding for filtering."
ReplyDeleteAlso, where in this post am I "mocking" Ginny? I'm making observations about a lack of follow-through on various items. While these facts might shed her in a negative light, that's not mockery.
And Non-Censor is right: your holier-than-thou comments, like that you "don't go about making juvenile comments about ALA promises broken", are tiresome, especially when they come immediately after complaints about ALA promises broken.
Also, I continue find if amazing that Ginny welcomes your input in these "local" matters, while anytime someone else outside West Bend expresses an opinion, it is met with hostility:
ReplyDelete"ALA Deborah Caldwell-Stone poked her nose into West Bend's business last night"
"UWM pokes nose into West Bend's issues"
So Ginny needs guidance from Safelibraries on how to get something noatrized?she is dumber than I thought! She is so out of her depth it's amazing!
ReplyDeleteI have to say I do not comment here often because it just starts another rolling wave of the Saul Alinsky-style attacks. And that's exactly what has happened.
ReplyDeleteThe ALA source of six years ago comes from the ALA president at that time speaking one week after US v. ALA was decided against the ALA. The interview was broadcast on NPR radio. If you find the link, please let me know.
As far as Ginny "welcoming my input," I'm not surprised. The world's oldest and current third largest news organization just called my web site "a clearing house for information about challenging books." Your web site is a clearing house for persistent and personal attack by the same small group of attackers.
As far as welcoming input from the ALA, consider American Library Association Shamed," by Nat Hentoff, Laurel Leader-Call, 2 March 2007.
I ask anyone reading this to explain why the ALA views book burnings, bannings, and jailed librarians in Cuba as NOT censorship, and why people legally keeping children from inappropriate material IS censorship.
Why does the ALA not only refuse to assist jailed Cuban librarians, but go further and actually thwart efforts by others to assist them? Why should members of the public consider the ALA to be authoritative on the definition of what is censorship in local public libraries?
Indeed, why should local libraries care one whit about an organization actively blocking efforts to assist jailed and beaten Cuban librarians and associated censorship and book burnings?
(Note I've added Ginny's biggest failure to complete what she started in the post above: while she said she'd "start again" and told her supporters that new formal complaint forms will be required, nothing ever happened)
ReplyDelete@SafeLibraries: It is your burden to find the source to support your claim, not mine. Until that is provided, it remains another unverified claim.
ReplyDeleteAnd why you're inserting Cuba into this argument is besides me. We're talking about West Bend. Please stay on topic.
It's not unverified. I have given enough information to specifically identify the source. I just don't have the URL offhand. NPR has a recording, and I provided specific information as to date and name of the person interviewed. My not being able to finger the URL at this moment does not make it unverified.
ReplyDeleteI suppose you are insinuating that I am lying. This stuff is so unbelievable, I'm simply not smart enough to lie about it.
The Cuba issue was raised because of your statements regarding the ALA, Ginny, reliable sources, etc. The ALA is not a reliable source. Of course your response is to question the messenger and ignore the message. Same old same old, and it's really old.
Sure, Dan, and I could say there's an interview of you six years ago saying "I like sheep" that was broadcast on BBC radio....I just can't find the link right now. So, then it must be a verified source. Sorry, bud.
ReplyDeleteThat is a baaa-aaa-aaad analogy.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... so the ALA is not a reliable source, and SafeLibraries, who flat out makes up the meanings of Supreme Court decisions to suit his goals, is more reliable? And the evidence is some opinion 2007 opinion letter about the ALA stance --- or lack of one -- on censorship in CUBA? WTF????
ReplyDeleteOh, go easy on Danny. He's still awestruck that the AFP called his website a "clearing house". WOWOWOWOWOW!
ReplyDeleteDoesn't anybody here ever talk about issues? Oh that's right, no, this entire blog post is labeled, "Ginny Maziarka Rarely Finishes What She Starts." I should know better than to write here anymore.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm tired of the nonstop personal attacks and foul language on this blog post and blog. Freedom of speech, intellectual freedom, or civil discourse is obviously of no concern to anyone here.
ReplyDeletePlease point out a personal attack or foul language on this blog post. All I've done is shown that Ginny has frequently said that something would happen, and then it never does. That's relevant information for anyone who might chose to support her or follow her lead.
ReplyDeleteAlso, show me where anyone is infringing on freedom of speech? The very fact that I don't moderate comments reveals a dedication to free speech, no?
Non-Censor. He uses "WTF." He just anonymously commented on one of my blog posts saying, "...WTF???? Could you explain to me what exactly you're using this blog for?" For the first time, I removed the comment since it was pure personal attack, used foul language, and hid his identity. I do not think I am required to keep foul-mouthed personal attacks by people hiding their identity and raising matters having nothing to do in the slightest with the subject matter. I mean really, the same guy attacking me here goes to my blog and starts attacking me there. I mentioned Saul Alinsky-style attacks before, and the people here just go right on proving me correct. I don't feel much like commenting here further because it always results, almost without fail, in rolling waves of nonstop personal attacks. If you want your blog to be taken seriously, you have to tone things down here.
ReplyDeleteYou said "I'm tired of the nonstop personal attacks and foul language on this blog post..." There is no personal attack or foul language in this blog post. I cannot control what others say in the comments. (and WTF is not foul language).
ReplyDeleteAnd whatever he said on your blog is irrelevant to me and this blog.
I don't care if this blog is taken seriously by you or not - its purpose is to bring to light the multiple errors, lapses of logic, intolerances, and other related comedies that have arisen ever since Ginny decided she didn't like the presence of gay-affirming books in the library. You, sir, can take it or leave it as you please.
For the record, I don't post anonymously on SafeLibrarie's blog or any blog. I'm quite willing to be identified with my comments. And WTF is no more foul that SNAFU or FUBAR, all of which are based on the same tabooed word. If you want to take your toys and play elsewhere, that is your pre-rogative. But if you get hurt playing with the bigger kids, I don't understand why you keep coming back for more.
ReplyDeleteFYI, I do not oppose such material.
ReplyDeleteWhen i set up the Cafe Press store I honestly didn't expect to sell anything - BOY am I surprised!
ReplyDelete"complains loudly" - Tony Vrana (The library's a "house of porn") and the rest of WB has a model for how politics work: Ginny!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, her goups tasks to CENSOR Obama worked, but Elmbrook's decision definitely added weight to West Bend's decision.
Either way, I will work hard to ensure no live stream video from any Democratic, Republican or other president ever is seen and heard by are easily indoctrinated "special" West Bend residents age 1-18.
??
ReplyDeleteDan, Dan, Dan - when will you learn that your attempts to inflame and convince others that you are truly for protecting free speech are falling on deaf ears? Aligning yourself with Maziarka from the get go has put you in an unflattering light. Your mission to change the hearts and minds of the "liberal, homo lovers" in WB, while making your pitiful accusations here and elsewhere, is really an uphill battle. In the words of your bff, Ginny, "you're on probation for trolling." Who knows - maybe Sleepless will borrow a phrase from Maziarka and tell you "Poof! You're gone!"
ReplyDeleteHey, can we not call Ginny "Fatso"? I vehemently disagree with her positions, but those have nothing whatsoever to do with her weight. There's plenty of actual reasons to dislike her, but that's not one of them.
ReplyDeleteSafeLibraries said: "As far as Ginny "welcoming my input," I'm not surprised. The world's oldest and current third largest news organization just called my web site "a clearing house for information about challenging books."
ReplyDeleteFine - its ok for Ginny to reach out to someone who knows more about book challenges than she does for advice and guidance. Equally valid, then, is a small public library to contact their professional organization for guidance on how to deal with book challenges.
No?
would lardass be ok instead of fatso?
ReplyDeleteThe SafeLibraries fellow is generally considered a nutjob by anyone involved with libraries; people who make libraries their life and career. It's not really worth discussing anything with him or taking anything he says seriously.
ReplyDeleteIt's absurd to have such a personal agenda against an organization such as the ALA. It's just beyond crazy.
If you don't want the ALA involved in your library, hire "librarians" without librarian training and without ALA-accredited degrees. Problem solved. And good luck with your library.