Can We Talk

I’ve hesitated commenting on the death of Joan Rivers mainly because I’ve been trying lately not to dwell on the negative in life. These days, the snark, the crappy attitude; all come so easily on Facebook and other social media.

But when you think about it, Joan Rivers herself made not only a career but an industry out of that didn’t she?

The accolades have been rolling in, even from organizations that initially criticized her (rightfully so) for some of the straight up nasty shit that she spouted in the name of comedy. 

Let’s get this out of the way. She was, I suppose, a pioneer. I never found her that funny, but during her first round of fame, I think I was too young to care about the jokes she told (I was born in 1964). 



She talked about being a woman, about married life, and it was generally in a catty, admittedly self-deprecating way. I give her, Phyllis Diller, and women like her trying to be comedians at the time a lot of props. While a male comedian could joke, “My wife is so stupid…” a female comedian had to say, “I’m the wife, and I’m so stupid…” Definitely a double standard. And Joan played it. From what I understand she played it brilliantly.

By the time I was old enough to appreciate it, though, she’d sort of disappeared from the spotlight though not from comedy. After that whole thing with Jonny Carson and her talk show (and by the way, those who are furious at her for supposedly “stabbing Johnny” in the back, let’s be real. How many backs in the industry held Carson’s blade. And once he won and the prodigal daughter lost, there’s no reason he couldn’t have shown a little class and let the feud die), she didn’t just fade away. (And to her credit, a boycott started in which guests that appeared on Rivers' show were barred from Carson's show which might have affected people willing to guest her show. It's something that affected Dennis Miller's talk show and has continued on even today when Jimmy Fallon hosts the Tonight Show and the same threat exists. As a guest you are exclusive to us. 

Joan was out there humping, from what I understand paying off the debts that her husband (who eventually killed himself) racked up while they were trying to make the talk show a go.

Well, I don’t know if the debts were all of her husband’s racking. Again, let’s be honest. Or in the words of herself, “Can we talk?” It looked like she could rack up a pretty good bill on her own when she wanted to. Hairspray on its own had to cost a fortune.

Still, like Edie Adams who had to perform for decades to pay back the debts from her brilliant but spendthrift husband, Ernie Kovacs, Joan found herself out on the circuit, working like a dog, not only to pay back debts but to rebuild a career that had gone off the tracks (and it going off the tracks wasn't all her fault).

How can you not respect that? She also had a daughter that she had to support. (although an evil little part of me wants to say, “Welcome to real life, Joan. My mom had to pack staples for eight hours every night for a couple of decades to help feed and clothe four children because the jerk she was still married to wouldn’t give her enough to pay the bills.” Can we talk?)

So one can appreciate the hoops she had to jump through in life. But twice in her life she had reached a level of great influence and what did she decide to do? Well, during the first phase her comedy continued to be about denigrating herself (and others like her). (Come to think of it, I think that’s the other thing that turned me off about her even in the 80s. She had that creepy sort of “I hate myself” mentality). She had spent so much time singing that song to get ahead, that when she could start changing the tune, she didn’t. She was in no way an unattractive lady, but she spoke of herself as if she were nightmare. She obviously had some smarts, but you wouldn’t necessarily pick that up by her catty shtick which often slammed herself.

I don’t know, maybe her own self-hatred was so strong that it was too hard to see the power she had. 

By the time the second phase of popularity came about, perhaps she suddenly woke up to her own worth. Plastic surgery might have helped and I think anyone who can afford to change something they don’t like about themselves should go and do it. Especially when you’re someone in the limelight. I think the reality for most people, however, is that they don’t have the resources to do that, so ultimately the better thing is to accept your physical flaws and move on with life, cause you can waste a lot of your short time on earth obsessing over flaws that have no consequence to anyone.

Joan had a crapload of work down (can we talk?) and never apologized for it and people will point to her honesty about the work done to prove how real a person she was. And yet she was absolutely nasty to people who also had work done yet perhaps didn’t want it put out to the entire universe.

And she found some fame doing award show, red carpet commentary in the past decade which is perfect for the catty, snarky, basically nasty form of comedy that she apparently decided to stick with. 



In this form of comedy, you don’t really need to make a joke, all you have to do is make an observation and then be righteously indignant that someone might find the comment…well not very funny at all. “Can we talk” was replaced with a sort of “oh please!” followed by a weird open mouth “Give me a break” sort of posture as if to say, “How can you not find that hilarious.”

Oh…the ribs I break just thinking about it…

And that’s when the worm really turned for me and Joan. Cause even while I wasn’t a huge fan of her when I was young I could every so often spark up a smile over something she said. Like when she hosted the Tonight Show and her monologue could sometimes bring a smile to my face. But the past several years, all I saw was a woman slowly leaning on the crutch of snark (which again, anyone on FB can produce in bundles) to get through the routine. I didn’t actually see a clever joke or observation. Just a woman pointing out the obvious with that “oh please” after the audience expressed trepidation at the comment. 

Look, I don’t mind dark humor. I grew up on dark humor. If I wasn’t into dark humor I would have killed myself when I was twelve cause I had a dark life and humor was the only way I got through it(and I'm not just writing that for effect. I seriously considered ways to kill myself). Hell it was the only way the family could have a meal around the table. The morning this Beatle fan found out John Lennon had been killed, my first statement was, “Well I guess this means they’ll never get back together.” And in fact, I used the death in a fake news bit for a routine during drama class in which I reported that Mark David Chapman would be prosecuted for shooting the late star, “out of season” (yep, a little slap at our loose gun laws). I still remember the uncertain laughter of my classmates. At my brother’s wake (he died of cancer at 42), I was like a standup comedian; my whole desire to get people to laugh more and hurt less. And do you want rough trade? Imagine living with the mother who watched her son die of the same illness she herself was diagnosed with a year later.

So I know a lil’ something about laughing through pain (when called on her nastiness, Joan would bring up the fact that she joked about her husband’s suicide as if that made all the crummy comments she made about people okay). But I also understand how to pick targets and target topics. I’ve heard so many stories in which people called Joan Rivers “outspoken”. Well when is it being “outspoken” and when is it just being an asshole?

Look at her words against (and I use that word very specifically) the baby of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian: “That baby is ugly… I’ve never seen a six-month-old so desperately in need of a waxing,”

Number one, why attack the kid, fresh from the womb whose had no time to do bad to anyone? Secondly, bitch, really? The kid is actually cute. And I’m not someone easily impressed by babies. Joan, you take a look in the mirror recently? Five billion dollars on plastic and you still look like a crimped up hausfrau trying to be someone she’s not. The kid still has a shot at looking like a human, you lost your shot long ago.

Oh…I’m sorry, I’m just making a joke. No one should take it so seriously. I’m just being a comedian.

Now if Joan wanted to go after Kanye and Kim for being…well basically famous for celebrity (though at least Kanye has some sort of music career to lay a claim to fame), I’m fine with that. I mean Kanye is the pinhead who stated that he’s “…a proud nonreader of books.” As for Kim, outside of the strenuous work she’s done on her hair and nails, what has she actually done to gain the fame she has (and a prop to Joan, while Joan was on stage busting her octogenarian ass to make a living, Kim sent out a tweet and the collective eyes of the world all turned her way and she made millions. Of course, let’s not forget, the audience that Joan told that joke to is comprised of the very people who made Kim Kardashian a star).

But really? Now remember this is “a pioneer” of comedy. People will call her a genius, etc. And this is the best she can do? A lame ugly joke about waxing aimed at a baby who is actually cute and hasn’t done anyone any harm?

Again I ask, when does the line between outspoken and asshole become crossed? And should we be celebrating this? If any second rate comedian had made that joke, it would have garnered perhaps a slight titter of laugh (if the audience were intelligent they wouldn’t have laughed at all). Anyone else who made that joke would be called “heartless” or “asshole.” But because Joan Rivers made it, we’re reminded that “It’s just a joke. She’s a comedian. Don’t take it so seriously!”

To which I respond, if she is a comedian, if she’s this genius that everyone claims she is, then when aiming a joke at a helpless baby, why couldn’t she have had at least made a funnier joke? 

And here’s an exchange about Adele found on The Daily News regarding her calling Adele fat:

"Rivers first called Adele, 24, 'chubby' while visiting the 'Late Show' in February, chatting with host David Letterman about the award-winning singer's appearance at the Academy Awards.

"'She sang live and said, 'My throat, my throat, I don't know if I can swallow.' And I said, 'Oh, you can swallow,’' Rivers joked.

'What is her song, 'Rolling in the Deep'? She should add fried chicken.'

Weeks later, in an interview with HuffPost Live, Rivers didn't back down from her comments, though she revealed Adele confronted her about it. 'She's a chubby lady who's very, very rich, and she should just calm down — or lose weight!' Rivers said.

'She wanted an apology, so I took an ad out on her a--. I said, 'You are not fat.' And then I had room for a lot of other ads. Adele is beautiful and successful and has what, $100 million? Let's face reality: She's fat.'"

Here, by the way, is Joan's legendary commentary on Adele's weight: 

Forgetting for a moment that Adele went through a sort of condition that basically silenced Julie Andrew’s voice (yeah, that’s right pumpkins, she had polyps on her vocal chords that could have, at the age of 23, destroyed her singing career. I’m guessing that’s why she had an issue with swallowing), out of curiosity, what exactly did Adele do to deserve this negativity from Joan? Is Adele a mean person? Is she a vacuous person? We all know Adele is a bit chubby, so we don’t need that pointed out. So I guess because she’s beautiful and successful and makes money Adele shouldn’t be upset that entertainment’s resident bully was out there calling her “fat” in a weak attempt at humor to help prop up he own career. 

And of course Joan’s response is, “Hey, she’s got money. She should just calm down—or lose weight.” 

No Joan, you should just shut your pathetic pie hole if you can’t come up with something actually funny to say, which presumably is what people pay you for. How many fantastic foils are out there for you to take a shot at, and yet you, your genius self, choose…Adele! Good work, asshat!

Personally, if I was Adele, I would have just said, “What more can you expect from a third rate comedian for whom looks mean everything. I mean, what's with the creepy cat's eyes?”

Cause yes, sorry fans, but at this point, Joan Rivers became a third rate comedian. If this is the best she can do regarding jokes, well I mean, can we talk?

Even as a commentator on the human condition she sounded like an elderly aunt suffering from dementia who had no internal filter what-so-ever. Dig this comment on the latest skirmish between Israel and Palestinians:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/joan-rivers-palestinians-deserve-to-be-dead-9656554.html

Ultimately, this is why I can’t feel appreciation for her “so called” comedy or much sympathy for her passing. Her humor the past several years rarely reached the level of the average Facebook post. Her humor rarely rose above the level of the average school yard bully.

And I’m sorry but wrapping it in, “Oh it’s just a joke! I’m just a comedian!” doesn’t make it okay. First of all, judging by what she actually produced it’s hard to say that these are jokes stated by an actual comedian (to the reader: seriously, next time your son or daughter comes home crying because the bully at school was being mean to them, just tell them, “Oh they’re just being comedians, honey.”) The jokes aren’t all that funny. And in the case with Joan’s comments on Palestinians, you can’t just walk back from your comments and say, “Oh they were taken out of context.” Again, can we talk (or the more current “Bitch, please”)? Joan took an intricate issue and boiled it down to, the Palestinians who died, whether they were part of the insurgence or not deserved to die because, “You started it?” Well, one could argue that it was all started when Palestinians were cleared out in the 1940s to make way for the Jews that no other country wanted to take on. But really? She could support Israel all she wanted to. She could claim that the Palestinian authority is all blame for what’s going on now. 

But she couldn’t find any sympathy for innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire? Her response was… “you deserved it”? Really? 

And even more, she’s such a legend, such a genius, so astute, yet she didn’t have the sense to tell the guy chasing her for a comment on the situation, “Look, I’m a comedian. Go speak to someone in charge for a comment”?

Again, we can find this shit on any social media. What makes her game so special? Considering how many true louses there are in the world, why would she piss on people who have never pissed on her or anyone else? How clever is that?

Because to strike at those who deserved it would have taken talent. Talent she was either completely devoid of, or talent which had left her long ago. So she decided instead to go after the small guy. The easy targets. Joan became what she herself fought against most of her life: The jerk who thought it was perfectly okay to slam the downtrodden. For example: The woman trying to make it in showbiz at a time when it was ruled by men.

So you will see, as the days roll on, people claiming, “Well, we shouldn’t have taken her so seriously. She was only a comedian.” Like this piece from Time:

http://time.com/3270731/joan-rivers-dead-fearless/

The bottom line is that Joan wanted it both ways. Her rush to make her opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis known illustrates that she wanted to be taken seriously, even when her responses were either ridiculous or completely unfunny.  But then when someone asked her, “How could you say that?” her response was, “Oh come on, I’m a comedian! I should be allowed to say whatever shit pops in my mind no matter how offensive, disgusting, or pathetic that is.”

In my opinion she, or anyone else, doesn’t get that easy of an out. If you said something stupid, offensive, etc., then you said something stupid and you get to carry that weight, like it or not. Acknowledge it and move on, or excuse it and let it sink you.

Rivers had nearly 60 years in comedy. That means she saw a lot of societal change. Among them, she was witness to the Civil Rights Act, the woman’s movement, the effort to recognize the rights of the LGBT community, and ironically, the latest efforts to put a spotlight on bullying and the effects of bullying. She had all that time to grow as a person and use the comedic skills she supposedly possessed to making the world better. It wasn’t her responsibility, but she none the less had that shot. She chose instead to continue the crappy comedy that she was, in some respects, forced to do decades ago to achieve a career. She altered it, but not for the better. And that, to me, sadly, is Joan Rivers’ legacy. She had the chance to make it better, but chose instead to remain low class.

Ultimately that’s why I can’t mourn her loss. I can feel sad for her. Obviously she had a lot of energy and a lot of living to do (this fatal procedure seems to have been a slip up on the part of her medical staff). I don’t think this was someone who just gave up on life. I can feel bad for her survivors. But as far as comedy, her field, I can’t say that it’s lost that bright a star. I think it had the potential for a bright star, but that star chose instead to stay in the past milking a style of “comedy” that really didn’t serve it or anyone else.

As I stated, I wasn’t sure whether or not I should write anything about this. But then I thought…well, I will say this, Rivers herself would probably not have filtered her opinion on the death of someone. Why should I? 

But then there’s that part of me that answers, “Because you have more class.”

Who’s to say?

This is, by the way,  how the classy lady discusses the first couple of the United States. I'm sorry, it's hard to feel a loss of someone so willing to say something this stupid:

A Bully in Board Member's Clothing

So here's the deal:

I have in the past posted about my various digital battles on social media with the board member who has no use for the library (feels it is a waste of taxpayers money--he has used the term "entitlement", while I believe that the taxpayers get more than their money back). He was appointed by the mayor who also has no use for the library. Usually the posts are just quick and fun. To update my page (since so much of my life is about working that's often all I have).

This board member has a blog in which he details the evils of...well anyone who doesn't agree with him on how Park Ridge should be run. On this blog he regularly disses his fellow library board members, the director of the library and the staff of the library who he claims on his blog, in rather hyperbolic language, are using the library patrons as pawns in their political game to get more money from the city.

Little background: For several years now, the city has defunded the library even though the cost of doing business has continued to raise. It's primarily in an effort for the mayor and certain members of the council to look good in the eyes of the taxpayer (they can't find money for the library but have no problem finding money for other lil' projects of theirs). The library has been asked to tighten its belt, even when the bad economy brought even more people to the library. And it has tightened it's belt, doing away with certain amenities for the patrons, putting off certain projects (some important), cutting hours, even cutting staff. But last November, the director went to the council and basically said, we can't do it anymore. We're going to need more money. (Again, the cost of doing business has continued to rise). A five percent tax levy was requested. The council voted it down. So the library had to figure out how to cut even more to address the budget. We lost three more staff members (their last day was April 30, the last day of the fiscal budget for the previous year) and it was decided that after over a decade, the library would be closing on Sundays during the summer.

Some libraries are closed Sundays during the summer but the Park Ridge Library is very well used by the taxpayers all year round (which is why I don't think it was too much to ask to increase the levy: The taxpayers get that money back and then some).

So beginning Memorial Day weekend, the library will be closed which affects all the staff, including myself, for whom Sundays are a part of their weekly schedule. That decision was not an easy one for anyone on the board or the director to make. And no one on the staff (who have no say in it anyway) wanted to see it happen either. We all experience how important the library is to the patrons and how important it is for those who come to the library on Sundays. For some people that was the most convenient time to go to the library.

In January, in an effort to demonize the staff in the eyes of the taxpayers, this board member wrote on his blog that one of the reasons for the Sunday closings was to divert the money to raises for the staff. Now raises for the staff had actually been brought up in a board meeting along with actually cutting staff pay to make up the budget deficit. But I've heard nothing further on it so for me, it's one of those "believe it when it happens" sort of things. I can say that that wasn't the main imputes for the decision to close the library. What this board member doesn't mention on his blog is how rarely in the past decade the library staff has had raises, and that any proposed 1% raise would do little to make up for what someone like myself is losing financially by losing those Sunday hours.

Predictably, on that particular blog piece there were people expressing concern and outrage that the staff would be getting raises. I believe this was exactly the reaction the board member was going for. 

Now since I've in the past felt compelled to correct certain misinformation that he's put out there (such as when I wrote a letter to the paper asking why he called the Food For Fines program--a program that the community has known about and participated in for a couple of decades--"theft from the taxpayers") I decided to pop on his blog and clarify this raise issue for the outraged readers. I know I won't convince him of anything. But there may be some reasonable citizens who can be reached.

That's how it started. We've been digital pals ever since. Well, perhaps not pals. He apparently has a lot of time to maintain that blog, and he has such a problem with the library, that he's been slamming the board, director and staff pretty regularly. Continuing to insist that these entities are using the patrons as pawns. I know that most members of the board don't like the Sunday closings (though I wouldn't be surprised if he loves it, despite his claims, because it's allowed him to get his agenda out there). I know the director is not happy about it. She cares about the community. And as stated, I know the staff isn't happy. But what troubled me was his insistence in bringing the staff into his accusation. The staff has no say in any of this. I understand his goal: to further demonize the staff in the eyes of the patrons affected by this closing. But it isn't fair. And I felt it important to point this out. Continuously, because he was relentless in his response to comments made on this post, continuing to drag the staff into the fault of this decision.

And of course other posts have continued this harranguing of the staff. I've commented on many of his posts, at first using my initials cause it was easier to input after every comment, then when he decided I was trying to hide (the way some people hide behind the "anonymous" tag) I started using my full name. So apparently now, I'm fairly well known.

A week or so ago, a friend of mine attended a library board meeting and posted to my Facebook timeline something along the lines of her watching a board member scarf down the free chocolates. I think it was one sentence and mentioned no names (not that most of Facebook friends, many of whom are out of state and out of the US, would recognize a name used anyway). It was the sort of innocuous jokey post made on FB by any number of people every day.

Well, a few days ago my friend messaged me and asked me to take the post down. Apparently the board member and his friends were checking out my FB page. I checked for the post but couldn't find it leading me to suspect that since my friend deleted it off her timeline, it was deleted from mine.

If it hadn't involved her I wouldn't have bothered with it. I've been posting about that library situation for months. But she was skiddish because she's been the target of some social media bullying before.

A day or so later someone told me that indeed my name, my FB page and that post was mentioned in the comment section of one of the board member's posts on his blog. It was mentioned by someone using the tag "Anonymous" because they were too chicken to use their real name or identifying initials. It could have been the board member's close pal, the mayor. It could have been one of his alderman buddies. It could have been one of the people in the past who have harassed my friend. Whoever it was, mentioning it really had nothing to do with the post that the board member made. It was all a deliberate attempt to make me look bad.

Of course I put up a response (and as anyone who knows me knows it was a meaty one). The chief point being that since I post a lot of stuff on my timeline, someone would have had to (in my opinion obsessively) scan through a lot of stuff to catch this one line post. That in itself borders on creepy.

By the time I was able to post my response, however (I had to wait a day or two because of my idiotic schedule), Anonymous commented again stating that he/she went through my time line again and the post had been removed to which the board member piped in an accusation that I had white washed my timeline.

Which is what's led to this blog post. Had my friend not deleted this post, I may have per her request because it involved her. If it was just me, I would have left it on. After all, I wouldn't want the board member and his pals to think they scared me off.

After it was noted that the board member minions were trolling my FB page some people counseled me to make my status private. I especially won't now. Right now my FB page is for friendship and promotion. Perhaps I'll set up an author page but I haven't had the time yet.

But why should I give these trolls the benefit of trying to scare me into changing my status?

This board member and his pals are engaging in the sort of tactics 12-year old bullies use now to scare their targets at school. I've faced bullies all my life. Both outside and inside my home. When you have your own parents taking out their frustration out on you, a little bullying by a board member doesn't really register.

I have no doubt that part of the reason this comment was made on the board member's post was for intimidation purposes. "We're keeping an eye on you. You may get into trouble." That is, after all, what helps make people nervous about asking questions, or calling people on their BS.

But another reason I believe my FB page was brought up was so the board member could bring up certain things that he might not have had a chance (because they hadn't been raised) to bring up. For example, he commented on the "scarfing chocolates" observation with a long discussion about not having time to eat dinner when he takes the train downtown and heads to a 7 p.m. board meeting so he was feeling hungry (all because he had to hurry to the library board meeting and stand up for the taxpayer against the evil cabal: Look how he gives and gives to and protects the community--this last bit was implied). 

Again, no one on his blog would have known anything about this post had his pal not brought it up after surfing my timeline looking for trouble. And since names weren't given, my friend technically could have been talking about anyone. The board member rather outted himself on that one.

But this board member is a crafty one and he understands opportunities and he knows how valuable words are. You get the meme out there (oh...like we're closing on Sundays so that the staff can have raises; or the library personal are using the patrons as pawns) and it's out there causing all sorts of misunderstanding and trouble.

Or I've "whitewashed my FB page" because I'm scared of being found out about something.

That's why I'm putting this piece up on my blog and posting it to my FB page for my friends and his minions to see. I want them to understand that I'm not scared. If there is something I don't want people to see, I don't post it to social media. So what you see on my timeline that I post are things I have no problem with you seeing. And if I leave it on there after a friend shared it to my Timeline (provided I catch the post), then I'm fine with people seeing that. 

And that includes you, little minion who goes by "Anonymous" because, again, you're too "cluck cluck" to go by your real name. When you start having the guts to post with your real name, you can start talking to me about what I post on my social media pages.

And stay tuned, minion, cause I'm sure I'll be posting more stuff on the library. You'll want to keep your master informed.

For the Love of Libraries

A few weeks ago, there was a discussion in a city council meeting regarding the budget of the library for my hometown. The library was seeking a 5 percent increase in the library budget and a few members of the council as well as the mayor questioned the need for programs and certain materials available at the library.

This is an issue important to me because libraries are important to me and it seems that in these financially dicey times, the moment budget slashing is considered, the first glance is always cast in the direction of the local library: The heaviest utilized institution in a town. There are those who even consider them nonessential to a community, which is absolute rubbish. 

I will admit, libraries have changed since I was a kid. I remember the library in the town I grew up in was small and quiet (it actually started in the basement of a local hotel, then moved up to its own building nearby. Now, after getting the okay for a new building several years ago, it's quite large and beautiful). Neither of my parents finished high school, yet they both impressed upon their kids a love of reading. I didn't need much incentive. I fell in love with reading the moment I realized that I was actually understanding the words in the book I was reading (as opposed to pretending to sound out the words). My dad, an electrical contractor in the village, even served as a library trustee for a couple of decades. One of the stops of the library bookmobile was my street, outside the tavern that my grandfather built in the thirties (those were the days when not a thought was given to a library bookmobile standing outside a tavern). I used to put the horses out in the spot where the bookmobile would park and when they left, I raced my bike along on the sidewalk after them. When she got a chance to read, my mom could devour books (I envied her ability to read as fast as she did). She made sure we were regular visitors to the library. And from an early age I was drawn to the worlds and knowledge the library helped me tap into.

I learned the value of libraries. I've turned to them for researching my writing and for my reading pleasure. They are an incredible resource.

Times have changed. Libraries are still a wealth of knowledge, but they're so much more. Even in the digital age, libraries remain important for a variety of reasons: Educational, entertainment, socialization, heck even babysitting (having kids wait in a safe place after school until parents can pick them up). One part institution of learning, one part community center, they can be a focal point of a community, bringing citizens together, as the library where I've worked for 14 years did the day after Thanksgiving when the library stayed open three hours later (while City Hall and other city entities were closed all day) for a holiday open house. People came in for refreshments and holiday programs, and holiday songs were performed in the reference department. Even Santa stopped by for a storytime. It is a popular event every year and we can expect phone calls from the taxpayers beginning that morning asking what the line up is for that night. Years ago, when the library was closed for six weeks for an asbestos removal project, stores and restaurants in the area noted a significant drop in business during that time since patrons weren't visiting the library (and following up a morning at the library with a lunch at the bagel shop or some other establishment).

Our current mayor wasn't mayor during the time of the asbestos project, though it's doubtful that fact would have registered. Nor does it seem he's done any research on the library. The mayor has presented himself as a champion of the taxpayer and he's made himself blind to reality when it comes to the issue of the library and the taxpayer. I've never actually seen him in the library though I hear that when he was running for mayor years ago he was only too happy to stand outside, glad-handing the many people going in and out of the library. And he was scheduled to show at the holiday open house. So, while he understand the marketing potential of the library when it comes to self promotion, he seems to be a bit out of touch with the value of the library to the city. Consider this statement made in regards to the DVD and video game collection:

"'From a taxpayers standpoint, I don't understand why the taxpayers are paying the library to buy movies and video games for people to come in and take out for free.' He also suggested the Library Board may need to have a 'philosophical discussion' about the 'core function of your library.'"
(Source: Park Ridge Herald Advocate Nov. 21 "Park Ridge Library considering spending cuts next year")

His comment astonishes me because, aside from the taxpayers, I don't know who else he thinks is checking out the DVDs and video games. And they check them out in droves, especially before holidays when they need to entertain family or friends. Years ago, the library charged a $1 per movie fee. When that policy was stopped and the movies were free, circulation rose dramatically. It is the taxpayers popping those things on hold before they're even released. It is the taxpayers making requests to buy certain television shows. When the library decided to offer video games, it was greeted with enthusiasm by the taxpayers as parents could now save money by not buying the games that their children will use a year and then put aside.

I speak with some authority on this because I work in circulation and I'm the one checking these items out to the taxpayer

Again, the mayor might know this if he showed less disdain and more interest in the library. While patrons from other libraries are able to check the DVDs out (not the video games so far) it is indeed the people of the community, the people whose interests he claims to be watching out for who are benefitting from these and other items in the collection as they are with the programs run by the library. Those are the children of tax payers enjoying storytimes. Those are the taxpayers going to see movies or talks. Attending job seeking seminars and taking part in reading clubs.

And it was the taxpayers who voted the library #5 in a recent article on the ten best things about Park Ridge. The mayor insists that he's looking out for the taxpayers but the library is the one institution in town that gives the biggest bang for the taxpayer buck.

It is shameful for a mayor to look upon the local library, an institution vital to the health of a community, as if its some sort of fiscal black hole. Unfortunately, this is an attitude on the rise the past few years in communities across the country. As the economy began to tank in the early 2000s, library usage rose dramatically, not that you'd know by listening to leaders like the mayor of my hometown. The mayor is not alone in his cluelessness about the library and its functions. Indeed in the same article, in regards to cutting free programs, an alderman stated "that though free programs are 'nice [they} are not necessarily the core function of what a library should be.'"

Of course this alderman couldn't be more incorrect. The core function of a library is to enlighten, whether that enlightenment comes from books or programs all accessible and highly enjoyed by the taxpayers. Perhaps it isn't the library but rather people like this aerman and the mayor who need to consider the core function of a library.

I cannot understand the attitude of people like the mayor that portrays libraries as practically pointless to a community but I will be only too happy to correct that wrong-headed notion whenever I come across it. 

Bill Shows His True Colors

This little piece of wonder was from FOX Nov. 6 election night coverage.

I always knew Bill O’Reilly was a nasty, arrogant man but I never realized how deeply that arrogance ran until I saw his reaction to Barack Obama's likely reelection to the presidency of the United States. His response to the Megyn Kelly’s almost child-like question of “how could this have happened?” doesn’t just border on misogyny and racism; it crosses the border, builds a house and starts a family. It is a stupid, hateful response delivered with that special touch of O’Reilly arrogance in which he tries to appear as a learned pundit while completely insulting his fellow citizens. It is an amazing moment made even more so not only by the blatancy of it, but by the fact that he was never called out by the Kelly or the station on the sheer bigotry of the statement.

He actually said, “The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?” And no one at FOX thought it might be a good idea to cut his mich.

You can’t really expect better from O’Reilly. This is a man so in love with himself that he actually believes his self-proclaimed publicity about his own grandeur. When it’s convenient, he fancies himself a journalist, a claim which might have at one time been true but is now a ship that has sailed so far from shore you can’t even see it. He is the bully who instinctually knows that if he blusters loudly and long enough, the other person will back down from sheer weariness. So talented a man is he for spreading bullshit he’s probably at this point able to completely convince himself that the crap he says is true. I have no doubt that in his mind, women and brown people did not vote for Obama because they felt more confidence in his vision than they did in that of his opponent’s. No, in the little mind of Bill O’Reilly, women and brown people voted for Obama because they want stuff and he promised to give them stuff (Rush Limbaugh, O’Reilly’s radio twin in assholishness, stated that the women and brown people “didn’t want to kill Santa”).

In other words, per these two creatures that have far too much influence over people, women and brown people are lazy children looking for a hand out. These modern day versions of Reagan’s mythical “welfare queens” want some of that free stuff that Obama has been promising (though for the life of me, I can’t figure out what free stuff they’re talking about. I’ve never heard him make any such promise). The racial makeup of America is changing, and in their minds, the numbers of white men, the bastions of the pure work ethic, are decreasing. So the numbers of the women and brown people (who I’m guessing per O’Reilly’s implication don’t understand hard work) were large enough to help Obama be victorious. And now the white men will be forced to give all their money to the government to support the women and brown people.

It is an amazingly racist claim that had I not actually heard it from the mouth of Bill himself, I would have thought was something made up in a political sketch on SNL. And it’s a rather hypocritical statement coming from a man who professes to be Christian. This good Catholic boy insulted great swaths of his fellow Americans by basically calling them freeloaders. Bill O’Reilly decries the war on Christmas while he declares war on his fellow tax paying, law abiding citizens. And here’s one of the problems with that: O’Reilly has a viewership made up primarily of morons who are willing to believe every idiotic claim he spews and are only too happy to accept the premise that nation is being taken down by the freeloading of the brown people.

Let’s just move the pieces representing race relations about ten squares back on the board.

Days after Barack Obama’s win, the GOP has offered a number of memes to explain how he was reelected. They range from changing demographics, to the timing of Hurricane Sandy, to (and this is rich) the claim that Obama’s camp was guilty of voter suppression. It will be interesting to see if O’Reilly vacillates on the reasons as his masters have been, or if he will stick with the “blame it on the freeloaders” theory he posited on election night.

I suspect, however, one reason (a real reason, not a reason made up out of fear and desperation) for Obama’s win could be that while President Obama was thanking his staff for a job well done; Mitt Romney was calling to cancel the credit cards of his campaign staff before they even made it home in their taxis. It’s the difference between a man expressing thoughtfulness and gratitude, and the cold mentality of a man who is able to transform the worth of a campaign staff into that of a load of fat that needs to be trimmed.

Newly reelected President Obama thanks his staff 

Attacking Capitalism?

So Bill O'Reilly sets up the the latest Republican talking point by accusing the president of going after Mitt Romney by "attacking capitalsim."

No Bill, as usual you're wrong (though I suspect you know that). The president isn't attacking capitalism. That's a fake meme that the right is trying to put out there to convince the low information voters who watch your network that President Obama has some socialistic agenda to bring down capitalism as we know it.

No, what the president is doing is criticizing scum like Mitt Romney (and a good portion of the GOP) who use capitalism (and a a fair amount of government loopholes--socialism is great when it benefits you) to destroy the society for heir own gain and thus help ruin capitalism for everyone. Most people on the left, including Obama, would probably tell you that they're all for capitalism as long as everyone gets a fair shot at it and the people aren't financially raped for the profit of a few. In the world Mitt would give us, the people would be raped, pillaged and plundered and they'd be expected to smile while the violation was going on.

Now Bill, I undersand that the concept of a fair shot is a hard concept to understand for someone who won't even give his guests a fair opportunity to respond to question he asks (unless, of course, the answers given follow the company line). But try to understand.

Creatures like Mitt Roney ask us to trust them even though trusting them before helped us get into this problem in the first place. Much like you, Bill, they throw around easy terms, a sort of verbal slight of heand, that point low information voters away from the facts, directing them instead to the lies you and your kind wish to spread to help get your pals elected. You'll be happy to put the journalistic integrity you claim to have (when it's convenient) on hold to help out the party. What's a little spin in the "no-spin zone"?

Remember how you accused Sandra Fluke of wanting the public to pay for her contraception when that wasn't the case at all. A journalist holding true to his ethics woudln't have stated that. But it fit so well with the party line, didn't it? After all, if you are able to direct the attention of the low informaiton voters toward the "Sandra Fluke is a free-loding whore" freak show that blow-hards on the right put on, then the low information voters won't see the truth: That a resonable woman wasn't looking for a hand out but was asking that the insurance she pays for include contraception in the package.

That's the sort of game you're playing with the president right now. If you can convince the people who have no desire to research the issues (and no comment sense to understand them if they did), then you can lead them like sheep to believe that one of the least socialist presidents we've had is a socialist (or a Nazi, or Communist, or Kenyan, or a Muslim or whatever else is convenient to get the voters to believe this week).

The true irony of this latest meme by the right...well, there are in some respects two examples of irony here. First is that the charge that the president is attacking capitalism is the best the right has to offer when it comes to the Bain ads put out by the president's campaign. The truth is out there in painful detail and it does not reflect well on Romney (look away from the video Low Information Voters. Look! The president is criticizing capitalism!).

But the biggest irony is, using this ad to accuse the president of being critical of capitalism is like...well, it's as crazy as accusing Newt Gringrich of criticizing capitalism when his camp first raised the specter of Bain while he was a candidate for the presidency. In fact, his camp posted a pretty biting YouTube video that was all the rage in an attempt to prove why he would be a better president than Mitt Romney (which is a bit like being asked to choose between arsenic or cyanide. They'll both kill you but each by varying degrees). Where was all that hand waving and gnashing of teeth then about Newt Gingrich's fiendish agenda to kill capitalism? It didn't jibe with the right's message (plus, there were so many other actual reasons to dislike Gingrich) so it was never brought up in that context. Accusing a GOPer of wanting to bring down capitalism by criticizing it? Perish the thought.

But we can accuse people on the left of that desire because, after all, using your logic, Bill, there's nothing people on the left long for more than to live in a gulag, work their asses off and eat stale bread to survive. And heck, how convenient because, thanks to Republican policies and greed nearly bankrupting this country the past few decades, that might actually be the fate of most people in America. Including the low information voters subscribing to the nonsense people like you spread.

Not All Jobs Are Careers

It doesn’t take a genius to understand the point that Hilary Rosen was making when she made her comments about Ann Romney not working a day in her life. The issue was jobs and women and the thought that Ann Romney could relate to women forced to have a job to survive is laughable. She might have worked at one time in her life, but she hasn’t had to worry about a job for a very long time.

But in typical fashion, the Republican strategists at FOX along with, no doubt, Mitt’s handlers decided to manufacture a controversy to divert the attention of idiots (hey every vote counts) from the main point by portraying Ann as a victim. It’s been done before. Every time the issue of women and the work place crops up a faux battle is created between working women and (at-one-time) housewives (what we’d now call Stay at Home Moms or SAHMS). Decades ago it was implied that women who worked looked down upon SAHMS so the stay at homes began to insist that, what was essentially their choice, be respected as a career (this is back when women with careers were fighting not to be vilified for choosing to have a career. Now most women need jobs and most would hardly call them dream careers).

So Ann Romney has become a tool in the battle to make the average person believe that the elitist Democrats are against God, motherhood and family. You know; everything wholesome in America. And of course professional big mouth and preternatural idiot Sarah Palin (who by the way had children, and one on the way, when she was running for VP) got on the band wagon, martialling her cadre of “momma grizzlies” or as I like to call them, “the fools who can’t see past her bs” and conducting interviews where she implied things that were never meant or for that matter said by Hilary Rosen. But then this is almost as natural as breathing for Sarah Palin.

The apologies were quickly forthcoming. Rozen apologized. Michelle Obama piped up with an apology. The president apologized (calling motherhood the hardest job in the world, which is probably news to those picking fruit in the fields, cleaning hotel rooms or on their feet waitressing all day). Basically, as usual, the Democrats let the Republicans drive the narrative. To be fair, the Republicans have been honing their skills at message manipulation and reality distortion for decades. Reagan was a savant at it. And now Republicans have a number of media outlets, the big one being FOX, to help spread the lies. But it seems to me rather than apologize for something that didn’t warrant an apology, the better course would be to grab back the narrative and control the direction.

For example, where’s my apology. As a working woman who has to get up every morning and face a day constrained by the dictates of a job and a boss, I would like both Ann and Mitt Romney to apologize to me for thinking that Ann could possibly relate to my circumstances and the circumstances of other working women (including my mom who, to help support her family, had to work the third shift packing staples so that she could be available during the day should it be necessary for the kids. She lost out on a lot of sleep, but perhaps Ann might think it was worth it for my mom to pursue her dream in all night factory staple packaging). Do you think Ann, or for that matter any SAHM could relate to that?

There are really two issues here. That a SAHM’s choice could compare to a woman needing a job and that Ann Romney could relate to either of them.

Perhaps though a defining of the terms would help.

Parenthood is a choice. Procreation, while it can lead to the continuation of the species, has no bearing on the survival of an individual (and in fact there are some individuals out there who shouldn’t procreate at all). That’s not to say that it’s devoid of effort. Raising any life form successfully involves varying degrees of effort and sacrifice. But this effort is none the less a consequence of what essentially is a choice. For example, if someone chooses to own a horse, she is going to have to clean the stable (or if you’re Ann Romney with a  dressage horse, you pay someone else to clean the stable). No one forced her to own a horse so she can’t really whine about the consequence of that choice. I might wish to own a horse too, but not being in the position to deal with the consequence, I choose not to own the horse. And if I did own a horse, I certainly wouldn’t expect laurels for my caring of the horse.

Or to put it another way, Ann Romney and other SAHMs chose to stay at home and raise their kids (a choice many mothers can’t make now). This is their dream. I would love to stay at home and write. That’s my dream. I would work very hard and be very proud of what I produced. Unfortunately, I haven’t married into a situation where someone can support me financially to pursue my dream so I have to have a job to survive. Nor do I get tax breaks or credits for producing what I yearn to produce. One reason this post is so late after Rosen and Romney’s comments came out is because finding time to do anything but the jobs I hold working the hours I do is very difficult. Even posting on a blog. And it might be tough for Ann to understand the survival part since she seems to think that every job a woman has is actually a career they can choose to do. That isn’t the case, and if she was as in touch with women’s issues as her husband and his pals think, then she’d get that. And she’d understand what Rosen was driving at when she made her comments.

So perhaps she and the other mama grizzlies out there can’t comprehend that for many women there is no choice (and there really is no career). A woman with a job is faced with certain realities not faced by SAHMs who are, essentially, their own bosses, difficult at times as the work may be. A woman with a job has to be somewhere in the morning, stay there for eight, nine, 12 hours a day depending on the schedule pulling a cart for someone else. They are at the mercy of that job. Then she comes home and has to deal with all the household and life duties a SAHM can deal with during the day because…well she stays at home and has the freedom of movement to do so (that’s why I don’t agree with ‘homemaker” being stated as a job either. We are all homemakers. The success in our homemaking depends on the time we have to do it; time that is in short supply if one has to work outside the house).

While a stay at home mom might have to juggle her schedule somewhat around the school schedule of the children to do a task outside the house (renew her license, car repairs, shopping) it doesn't require her taking time off from work (and losing pay) to do so.

If a SAHM is sick, (and yes, I know mothers will scoff at this) the house is able to function for a short time without her while she rests up a little.

A person who works (i.e. has an outside job), provided they get paid sick time, has to risk the wrath of her boss’ displeasure and the sick day being recorded on her record if she chooses to stay home and rest. This can influence future reviews, raises and even her keeping the job when corporate beheading is done to save money (Like the beheadings that went on after Mitt and Bain Capital bought out companies).

If the person doesn't get sick time, then she has to figure out how she's going to afford losing a day's pay to care for the illness that could get worse if she doesn't get some rest. That person, you think is so selfish because she came to work with a cold--it could be that she can't afford not to. This also goes back to accomplishing tasks that can only be done during the day while the person is working. How many working women actually use their vacations to do things they can’t normally do because they’re working eight or more hours a day? Plus working moms often have to adjust their schedules to account for days off school for their children.

Then there’s the stress that most working women and men have that they may not have a job for much longer. A cloud they live under now thanks in large part to what Mitt Romney and his party has done to this country the past decade or so.

SAHMs are very rarely fired from their careers. They are generally assured them for life (which can be a good or a bad thing depending on the situation). Sometimes a divorce occurs and then the SAHM may have to go out and find a job and realize how different an animal that situation is from what she had as a SAHM.

That is what is necessary to remember in all this. For women, motherhood is a choice. Survival isn’t. And many who might want to choose to devote all their time to their children (or whatever passion they might have) are unable to because of the climate we’re living in now. A climate that has been made more difficult thanks in large part to Ann’s husband and the folks he’s shilling for.

Responsibility and the Pill

It’s claimed by those standing against contraception that advocates of birth control promote irresponsibility. The fact is, it’s the other way around.

Let’s not even discuss unmarried sex. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, speaking of it just muddies the waters. And let's not bring into the debate the fact that many women use the Pill to help with medical conditions such as endometriosis. For the sake of the point, let’s keep the discussion to the bonds of holy matrimony. A young couple gets married, perhaps with dreams of one day starting a family but wanting to spend a few years becoming acquainted with their union. Making it strong physically, financially and emotionally. Even antiquated religious institutions recognize the fact that the act of sex can strengthen the relationship between husband and wife. But if this couple were to partake in it without contraception they run the risk of having children they’re not prepared for. Certainly, there are other forms of control. Prophylactics. The rhythm method. But let’s be honest: The Pill makes it a lot easier.

So essentially, the anticontraception crowd is offering this couple two options: Stay celibate for the amount of time you want to work on strengthening your union or procreate irresponsibly. Run the risk of popping the children out whether they’re prepared for them or not. What a sinful thing to preach.

To this crowd preaching irresponsibility, even if a couple is married, to have sex without the possibility of procreation is a sin. Which instantly damns a good portion of marriages because one or both partners are infertile. Woman past the age of menopause should no longer yearn for the closeness so put the Viagra  away you old codgers. Unless you want a younger wife who can provide fertile ground in which to sow your seed. And of course ditching the old wife is a sin, unless the Pope grants special dispensation.

And perhaps the couple is the sort who feels that it’s better to stop at two or three children so that they can afford to raise them above the poverty line. Perhaps send them to good schools so the children could have better futures. Au contraire. The morality brigade insists that those who want to be close as couples have to run the risk of having more kids than they may not be able to afford. Run the risk of putting more and dangerous stress on a woman’s aging body. Run the risk of damage to the baby. All because, according to some, contraception is a sin in the eyes of God. A god that the couple may not even believe in.

Now I’ve concentrated on those writhing in the bonds of matrimony to show just how sick the mentality of these anticontraceptionites is. Even two people in a legal, sanctified union have to choose between the physical expression of their love or popping out litters of children that they may not be able to care for.

Which is why I say, those preaching this attitude are preaching the height of irresponsibility.

But let’s back away from those who marry and remember just for a moment that we live in a country where there’s a separation of church and state (and Catholics, you’d better be glad we do since there was a time in the beginning of this country where you could have been hung for stepping foot into a Protestant town).

The holy books of the Bible, retold, rewritten, copied, edited over the centuries say many things about many things. Some of the "wisdom" is stolen from other cultures, some is contradiction, some pretty questionable morally as well. It may be one person’s moral law, but it is not the law of this land. A person having sex, married or not, has no bearing upon the lives of other people unless said person is careless enough to produce a child that she or he can’t afford and expects the tax prayer to do so. But that’s done all the time by married people whose careless procreation harms society.

So in essence, who is the more irresponsible here? The person married or single who want to have sex and takes steps (uses contraception) to avoid unwanted procreation; or the institutions who insist that contraception is a sin and instead encourage people to produce children they’re not ready for who will be a drain on society.

Perhaps irresponsibility, like morality, is in the eye of the beholder. But those who labor under the misguided and extremist notion the contraception is a sin have a lot to learn when it comes to the concept of responsibility.