The fake outrage over Islamic community center is just part of a wider hate campaign

The fake outrage ginned up by right-wingers over the proposal to build an Islamic community center close to the site of the so-called Ground Zero in lower Manhattan is grabbing all of the headlines, but it appears that right-wingers don’t want any mosques or community centers built.

It appear this is part of a larger hate campaign, and it’s just one more attempt by right-wingers to pervert the constitution, divide people and use their favorite tactic of fear to increase their base. Mosques and Muslims all over the country are literally under attack; from the New York City cab driver who was stabbed for being a Muslim to an attempt to block the building of a Muslim center in Murfreesboro, Tenn. The propaganda that they are just against building the Islamic community center near the former World Trade Center because it was the site of the 9/11 attacks is just a lie.

What’s sacred about Murfreesboro,Tenn.?

The New York Times has a few examples:

“In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.“

“In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor. “

We even have a so-called Christian church in Gainesville, Fla. planning to burn a Koran on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Book-burning? That is just unbelievable.

There is even a sick Facebook group called “International Burn A Koran Day” with 7,000 members that wants to have people burn the Koran on Sept. 11. These freedom haters and bigots need to burn a copy of the U.S. Constitution and a U.S. flag because they obviously hate them

That is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard. What people should be outraged about is the fact that the person who planned the 9/11 attacks have not been brought to justice or that there is still nothing at the actual site of ground zero. Not a building , not a memorial, nothing.

Recall group calls fighting back against this intimidation attempt a conspiracy

HOWELL – The group trying to recall three of the four Howell Public School Board members for casting a vote they disagree with is seeing black helicopters and conspiracy theories because the targets of the intimidation tactic are fighting back.

As you know, there is a misguided effort underway to recall three of the four Howell Public School Board members who voted to fire Superintendent Theodore Gardella after just a year on the job last month. Apparently, the recall organizers are up in arms because the spouses of two of the board members targeted in the recall sat in the parking lot of the Baymont Inn on July 9 when the organizational meeting was held, according to a story in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus.

According to the story, “Members of the group leading the recall effort said they’re worried that their opponents would monitor an organizational meeting and count the number of people showing up. They believe this type of behavior could be the start of more aggressive and possibly illegal activity.” Are they for real? What illegal activity are they talking about? Fighting the false charges?

There was nothing illegal, shady or creepy about it, and they should have gone inside to the meeting. I can only speculate the reason they didn’t go inside was, perhaps, to avoid a confrontation.

Monitoring the recall is a common and accepted tactic, and they should be doing it. You will remember the recall attempt in 2007 when Republicans tried to recall Democrats who voted for the tax increase that kept Michigan’s government up and running. This, like most recalls, is nothing but raw intimidation, and this is also just an attempt to circumvent the election process.

Only the recall of Speaker of the House Andy Dillon was successful, and Leon Drolet and company had to lie and bend the law to get signatures. It made it on the ballot, but was soundly defeated by voters. The other recalls failed to get enough signatures. They fought off the recall by having people “shadow” the people collecting signatures to give the other side of the story and to stop them from telling lies.

There were a few mild confrontations involving dueling video cameras, but that was because Republicans did not like being exposed and challenged. The sane and rational people opposing this recall/intimidation attempt should do the same thing. It’s legal and an accepted tactic.

In a move I have never head of before in 12 years as a reporter covering school boards and local government, the recall group has hired a Lansing-based attorney. It’s unclear who or how he is being paid. He claims, “surveillance is often the first step of more aggressive steps that could be illegal,” and he also he said “their actions and mind-set could evolve into something more serious.” Really; Like what?

The parking lot incident, apparently, came to light because the recall group, allegedly, “intercepted” emails between a board member and Doug Norton, a retired teacher who previously served as president of the Howell teachers’ union. The recall group and extremist rightwing board member Wendy Day are using that as proof of a conspiracy between the rest of the school board members and the teachers’ union.

Day’s anti-union views – as well as her anti-government, anti-teacher and anti-pubic school views – cloud her judgment.

Day, along with her co-conspirator Vicky Fyke, are founding members of the apparently defunct anti-gay hate group known as the LOVE PAC - (Livingston Organization for Values in Education) that embarrassed the community nationally when it tried to ban Pulitzer-Prize winning books.

Day is actively participating in the recall of her colleagues; a rare event, and perhaps the first time that has ever happened The irony is that the board has been criticized in the past for not working together. When this recall fails, how do they expect to work with somebody who pulled this double-cross against them?

It may appear that the “LOVE” group is not dead, and this is their way to circumvent the election, which are what these type of recalls are deigned to do.

“LOVE” went underground following the school board election in May 2007 when voters soundly rejected the two “LOVE: backed candidates in favor of, ironically, two of the three board members being recalled.

Fyke on this very blog wrote, “I look forward to the next election when we will add two more like-minded people to the school board, and get our important changes accomplished.”

She is not waiting for the election, and this is how she plans to get “like-minded people” on the school board.

Firing of HPS Superintendent just more controversy surrounding school district

HOWELL – The big news in Howell last week was the firing of Howell Public Schools Superintendent Theodore Gardella after just a year on the job by the school board at a rare Friday afternoon special meeting.

The surprise vote was 4-2 at a meeting called to address extremist rightwing trustee Wendy Day’s baseless allegations on her blog, but hassles with Gardella over the past year led the board to let him go. As a former reporter, anytime a Friday meeting is called my suspicions are raised, but with all the controversy surrounding the board since early June when Vicki Fyke, the co-founder with Day of the defunct anti-gay hate group known as the LOVE PAC - (Livingston Organization for Values in Education), circulated an e-mail saying Gardella would be fired there was no way the meeting would be a secret.

Apparently, Day was feeding info to Fyke gleaned from closed executive sessions called to discuss Gardella’s evaluation at his request, and it must have been clear the writing was on the wall. I have not heard one good word about Gardella from anyone but Day, and that makes him suspect in my book.

There has been lots of controversy surrounding Howell Schools in the last three years, but all of it can be traced back to Day’s arrival and that of the so-called “LOVE” group.

“LOVE” raised its ugly head back in the spring of 2006 in response to a diversity flag they mistakenly claim is a gay pride flag that they claim promotes and endorses homosexuality. Day was then elected to the board shortly after that, and she and LOVE immediately tried to impose their extremist agenda on the district.

In January 2007 Day tried to get a Bible course in the high school, and it would have been supplied by North Carolina-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools - an affiliate of The American Family Association, the most well-known anti-gay hate group in America.

In the fall on 2006, Day, Fyke and her group began a book banning crusade that ended with an embarrassing FBI investigation and national embarrassment. The group then launched a successful smear campaign to oust long-time Superintendent Chuck Breiner, who spent 13 years here, nine as superintendent; he left in March 2008 with a very generous severance package.

Day is admittedly anti-public school, and she has made her dislike for teachers and unions very clear. She also makes some pretty outrageous claims on her blog, claiming, an “underground group of Howell business owners and political officials has been working to control this district all along. They have a vested interest in making sure there is a good contract for the Chamber regarding the Balloonfest and Homeshow.”

Although the chambers of commerce are traditionally extremely pro-Republican, I have to defend them. The Home Show is held at the high school in the spring, and it features local businesses that pay school taxes.

The Balloonfest, also put on by the chamber this past weekend, is held on the grounds of the high school, middle school and 9th grade campus. It normally draws a 100,000 people from all over the state to Howell, and it leaves a good impression and they spend money in local businesses.

So, we have book banning giving us a bad name, and the Balloonfeat giving Howell a positive reputation. Which one do you choose?

Now, apparently, there is a move to recall three of the four board members who voted to fire Day's superintendent. Why three and not all four is a little unclear, but it may have something to do with how the replacements are chosen.

Paperwork was filed with the county clerk to start the recall attempt of board President Edwin Literski, Vice President Jeannine Pratt and Trustee Debi Drick, but not Trustee Ann Routt, who also voted to fire Gardella.

I am not a fan of recalls, and they have been routinely abused to circumvent the normal election process; as is this misguided recall abuse. A recall against people for making a vote you disagree with is simply wrong. They should be reserved for the elected official doing something wrong, illegal or immoral; not for a vote you disagree with. That is what elections are for.

The solution is to not sign a petition if the recall language is approved, and to vote against Day’s opponent – not recall her – next year when her term is up. The board will run smoother, and we will have a board member who supports the district and wants to make it better. Day can go back to organizing her fake “tea parties.”

Book banners are not concerned parents

I ran across this excellent post about book banning and censorship, and in light of the disgraceful situation we have going on with the attempted book banning in Howell, it seemed like a perfect opportunity to post it.
Camille, who runes the blog, told me all of the examples of censorship by what she calls “book banning know nothing nutters” actually happened and are “ripped from the headlines,” for you “Law and Order” fans. We know that’s true because we here in Howell have seen some of these very things happen from the so-called “LOVE” group.
If you love to read, love books and love to talk about them check out her blog the “Book Moot.”

It occurs to me that I should be clear. There is a difference between a concerned parent and a book banning know nothing nutter.

I love concerned parents.

Both a Concerned Parent and a BBKNN may not have read a children's book since their Betsy & Tacey / Go Dog Go days and are genuinely distressed by something in a children's or YA book

*******
A Concerned Parent reviews the book their child has checked out of the library

whereas

A BBKNN is working from a list they found on the internet and checking to see if the school library has any of the titles.

*******
A Concerned Parent talks to their child's teacher, librarian or principal about the book. They have a discussion with the librarian and others about the book.

whereas

A BBKNN goes directly to the school board demanding the book be banned.

*******
A Concerned Parent is genuinely worried about the effect a book has on their child and should be applauded for taking an interest in their child's reading life.

whereas

A BBKNN is primarily interested in the newspaper article about their school board appearance.

*******
A Concerned Parent works with the librarian to offer alternative reading choices to their child and the parent talks to their child about the books they expect them to read.

whereas

A BBKNN sends their kid into the library to check out yet ANOTHER controversial book so they can add it to their list of grievances.

*******
A Concerned Parent may determine that their child's reading selections need exploring and realize this is an opportunity to discuss certain issues with their child.

whereas

A BBKNN begins an email campaign maligning the librarian and expressing outrage over the presence of the book in the library and on the planet Earth.

*******
A Concerned Parent realizes that they can make reading choices for their own child but have no right to determine reading selections for other people's children.

whereas

A BBKNN complains about the book to people where he/she works and vows to "take the book down."

*******
A Concerned Parent may still honestly feel a book needs to be reconsidered after they have read it and they file paper work to have the book reconsidered.

whereas

A BBKNN files paperwork to challenge the book without reading the book in its entirety and goes through and picks words and scenes out of context to include in the complaint.

*******
A Concerned Parent reads the report of the reconsideration committee and finds a) the committee has agreed with the concerned parent or b) accepts that others have found value and merit in the book and is resigned that the book will remain on the shelf.

whereas

A BBKNN reads the report of the reconsideration committee and finds a) the committee has agreed with the BBKNN or b) shrieks in frustration that others have found value and merit in the book and is NOT resigned that the book will remain on the shelf.

Instead they immediately escalate and file an appeal vowing to take their complaint all the way to the state board of education.

*******
Concerned parents are concerned with the welfare of their own child.

whereas

BBKNNs' own children are not part of the equation because they don't let their kids read “those kinds of books” anyway.


I love concerned parents.

I also want to urge people to “Take the Banned Book Challenge” as part of Freedom to Read Week that begins Monday. Pelham Public Library in Fonthill, Ontario is sponsoring the challenge, and they are asking people to set a goal to read as many banned or challenged books as you wish between Feb. 26 and June 30, 2007. Readers can visit the Pelham Public Library’s Fahrenheit 451: Banned Book Blog to set your goal and report on your progress with an online form.

Intolerance reigns in Livingston County

We have another case of so-called community leaders overreacting and practicing censorship.

For the last two months or so there has been a flap over Howell High School banning – or pulling - a book from its advanced 10th grade English class called “The Freedom Writers Diary: How a Teacher and 150 Teens Used Writing to Change Themselves and the World Around Them" because of the book’s alleged profanity and references to drugs and sex acts. The district’s administration basically left the English teacher using the book out to dry by saying she never had approval to use the book in class.

For those of you who may have been watching TV recently, you may have seen the trailer for a film called “Freedom Writers” starring Hilary Swank that is based on this book. According to the plot line, “A young teacher (Swank) inspires her class of at-risk students to learn tolerance, apply themselves, and pursue education beyond high school. “ We do not want our young people learning tolerance, especially in conservative Livingston County.

It turns out that the book was used last year in class, and the book was approved by the English Department, according to an excellent article in the Daily Press & Argus by a good friend of mine and a future teacher.

A joint statement, signed by 17 English teachers at Howell High School, said the book was approved as a supplemental part of the curriculum by the Howell High School English department last year.
Ms. Capy is teaching the book because she was assigned to teach both of the two sections of accelerated 10th-grade English this year," the statement said. "It needs to be made clear that she has no responsibility whatsoever in the approval of the book other than being a voting member of the English department. The criticism of her by a few members of the community is completely unjustified."

Some of that unjustified criticism ”by a few members of the community” came in a letter to the editor in the newspaper today by Vicki Fyke, where she says, “It will be interesting to see if our administrators or our school board have the courage to enforce their policies and reprimand this irresponsible teacher for her total neglect in following the proper procedures and for not being the least bit sorry once she was scolded.” Maybe you should check your facts before you throe out unjustified accusations, Ms. Fyke.

The interesting thing about this letter is Ms. Fyke is the advisor for the Livingston County Teen Age Republicans. What a great job for an intolerant person, and she can pass that on to our future leaders. Apparently, she thinks only students with perfect records are worth educating. I suggest you read the book and go see the movie. Oh yea, I forgot, Liberal Hollywood is not going to stop you from being intolerant.