Le Jus de la Bibliothèque 6:7 - Le 20 Mars, 2003


1. Links
2. War
3. David Price: Librarians as FBI Extension Agents
4. Howard Fast, dead at 88, March 12 2003
5. When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
6. Wild Flower Show at the Free Library (1904)
7. Call for Paper Topics

Quotes for the week:

"We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against
us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . .
assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely
entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an
unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the
world into even greater instability."
- George Herbert Walker Bush, in his 1998 book A World Transformed

"My library / Was dukedom large enough."
- William Shakespeare, poet and dramatist (1564-1616)

Homepage of the week: David Price


1. Links


[ALACOUN:9199] Images of Iraq before Operation Free Iraq
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:37:55 -0500
From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]earthlink.net>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>
Reply to: iskra[at]earthlink.net

Friend Pam Sieving has sent me the link to this wonderful series of
images of faces of Iraqi people, children, adults, the old, their
conditions under sanctions, their land and way of life, their
cultures, their homes and dwellings, their heritage and monuments.

Look at what we are raining death and destruction upon -- in their
own interest, of course.

The link is

Please try it. The gallery is large , well organized and the photos
beautiful and eloquent.It is unusually well done and will draw you
into to an Iraq you have not seen...and which may not exist for much

Thank you, Pam,

In peace and solidarity,
Mark Rosenzweig


Special Nation editorial on the war:


Please pay attention to what this excerpt from a 2002 Scottish Sunday
Herald article says:

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a
destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from
the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US
'military intervention' is necessary."

Here's the article: "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis" - 10/2002

Here's the report, commissioned by Dick Cheney from the Baker Institute for
Public Policy, a think tank set up by James Baker:


Global listing of anti-war sites:

[ Gary Colmenar ]


Library Link of the Day

[ found in my logs ]


Progressive Librarian No. 21, Winter 2002 has been out for a little while.

The table of contents is on the web at http://libr.org/PL/contents21.html

The following articles are also online:

Electronic Metaphors and Paper Realities, by Robert Terrio

Palestinian Libraries: Little Pieces of Heaven in Hell, by Ghada Elturk

Neutrality, Objectivity and the Political Center, by Rory Litwin

For a list of all of the PL articles now on the website, go to


What Liberal Media?

[ Don Wood ]


Links to both official and unofficial transcripts of the CIPA arguments:

[ Karen Schneider ]


Library Journal's 2003 "Movers and Shakers" bios, including Jenna Freedman
and Ann Sparanese:


Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) & Emily Sheketoff, American Library Association
Topic: Internet Access at Public Libraries.
3/5/2003: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 15 min.


Sneak preview of ALA's new website:


LII PATRIOT Act resource collection


Mitch Freedman on Diane Rehm's radio program (NPR's WAMU, Washington DC)


"Mitch Freedman, president of the American Library Association, talks about
the possible consequences of state budget cuts for libraries in more than
30 states, plus other issues affecting libraries and librarians."

This interview is surprisingly personal from the get-go. Mitch talks about
his background, his reasons for running for ALA President, and goes on to
talk about the economic situation and how he has dealt with it at his
library system, pay equity, the CIPA campaign, the PATRIOT ACT, and the
image of librarians, and then answered questions from callers.


The Universal Right to Free Expression: An Interpretation of the Library
Bill of Rights


t r u t h o u t - Librarians Try to Alter Patriot Act


Out of the Stacks, Into the Streets
. . . by Erica Sagrans
College Hill Independent online edition, 3/5/03

[ Chris Dodge ]


2. War

Subject: Notes on Lexicography and Total War
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:30:48 -0500
From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]earthlink.net>
To: alacoun[at]ala.org, alacoun[at]ala.org, member-forum[at]ala.org
Cc: plgnet-l[at]listproc.sjsu.edu, srrtac-l[at]ala.org

The language of our war junta, its bureaucracy, its active supporters
and its its passive accepters is a' library issue' of some
significance. It requires its own philological study and lexicon. Are
librarians prepared to decode its special language?
I don't know how many people have noticed the exact analogy between
the locution 'devastating rapid attack' used by Bush et al and the
Nazi/German 'Blitzkrieg'. But it seems very few. And it seems very
important that there is an almost exact correspondence.
Even in English, 'Blitzkrieg' would connote a perfectly accurate
description of what is about to happen.
The only reason it's not used is that it has a certain sulfurous odor
of the infernal brought to earth about it, and not so long ago.

There are many such terms of special discourse of modernized
"imperial war culture" which has telling analogies in the Nazi
lexicon. For this reason and for the significance of this fact, which
I hope you will consider with some seriousness, I refer you to Viktor
Klemperer's "The Language of the Third Reich: LTI - Lingua Tertii
Imperii: A Philologist's Notebook" by Victor Klemperer, Martin Brady
(Translator) Continuum; July 2002 Pb 304 pages

Victor Klemperer (1881-1960), a front-line veteran of the First World
War, became professor of French literature at Dresden University. A
Jew, he was taken from his university post in 1935 and only survived
thanks to his marriage to an Aryan. From 1933 to 1945 he kept
detailed diaries, now in the course of publication, which contain, in
note form, some of the raw material for LTI.( Language of the Third

Under the Third Reich, the official language of Nazism came to be
used as a political tool. I expect this will happen now under our new

The existing social culture was manipulated and subverted as the
German people had their ethical values and their thoughts about
politics, history and daily life recast in a new language.

This Notebook, originally called LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii)-the
abbreviation itself a parody of Nazified language-was written out of
Klemperer's conviction that the language of the Third Reich helped to
create its culture.

As Klemperer writes: "it isn't only Nazi actions that have to vanish,
but also the Nazi cast of mind, the typical Nazi way of thinking, and
its breeding ground: the language of Nazism."

This is not to suggest that the US and its allies are Nazis but that
they, in constructing their 'new international imperium', (new world
order -- also right out of the Nazi lexikon !) like the Nazis did,
are already creating a debased language of evasion and cant, of
pomposity and hollowness, of illusion and mystique, of grand sounding
misrepresentation and purposeful miscommunication, of manipulative
cynical untruth which becomes the stuff of ordinary communication and
of the inguistic construction of the world of social interaction.

Who will better register the damage done by war to language, to its
integrity and beauty and dominant non-instrumental (manipulative)
aspects than people like librarians. Are they up to that task? Do
they even comprehend it?

Mark Rosenzweig
ALA Councilor at large
SRRT Action Council
co-editor, Progressive Librarian
Coordinating Committee member of the Progressive Libraians Guild
member ALA Progressive Council Caucus

Mark Rosenzweig
ALA Councilor at large

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Notes on Lexicography and Total War
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:24:45 -0500
From: fstoss[at]buffalo.edu
To: iskra[at]earthlink.net, alacoun[at]ala.org, member-forum[at]ala.org
Cc: plgnet-l[at]listproc.sjsu.edu, srrtac-l[at]ala.org

Yes, the language of war is perverting every aspect of life.

What's remarkable, from a Christian perspective, is the use of Scripture
(and this IS a very difficult issue with which all Christians MUST
confront) to justify our going to war. Paul wrote a rather lengthy passage
on the "Submission to Authority" in the 13th Chapter of Romans:

This is the same passage that was frequently used by German Christians (or
Christians holding allegiance to German authority) to justify their support
of Nazis and their political aganda. On March 11, last Tuesday night Larry
King did a feature on Christians and War, and it was downright frightful to
see so-called Christian "leaders" quoting these same words to justify the
support of the President and his agenda. What is worse is that these
"leaders" are in positions to influence far too many people by stipulating
that these words are Holy authority and represent the inerrant Word of God.
Yes, Bob Jones was one of those on the panel. Transcript is at:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/11/lkl.00.html Another member of the
panel was Bishop Melvin Talbert, ecumenical officer of the United
Methodist Church, and a staunch opponent of War as an option. President
bush has refused repeated attempts by Talbert to meet with him (as well as
refusing to meet with other leaders from the National Council of Churches,
who also are at odds with bush's policy on Iraq).

It is not my intent to get involved in a discussion on religion, but to
point out that the same logic is being used again for a similar purpose.
This is frightening at all levels.

Fred Stoss

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9156] "Bushkrieg"
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:16:43 +0000
From: "James B. Casey" <drjbc92[at]lib.oak-lawn.il.us>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>

The entire reasoning behind this "Bushkrieg"
plan is to eliminate a Hitler before he becomes
really dangerous --- i.e. beating Hitler in 1936
would have avoided much slaughter. However,
one should not forget where Hitler and Goring
and Stalin and Mussolini came from
--- out of a 1914 war which was supposed to
be so quick and prevent dangerous enemies
like Germany, France, Russia and Serbia
from becoming "too strong" and striking
first later on. And it was "touched off"
by acts of terrorism and assassination.

How many Hitlers will emerge from the rubble
of this "preventive" war?

Read Barbara Tuchman's THE GUNS OF
AUGUST. It reportedly was among the
history lessons which prevented JFK from
invading Cuba in 1962 and eliminating the
"evil Castro".

James B. Casey -- Councilor-at-Large

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9153] War
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:40:36 -0800
From: Michael Gorman <michaelg[at]csufresno.edu>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>

Dear Friends

This country is about to wage an unjust war on a weak country on the
basis of Orwellian lies. War is peace. Ignoring the UN is strengthening
the UN. The Iraki government is (a) a direct threat to the US and (b)
responsible for September 11, 2001. Countries against the US imperium
and the Bush government's actions are "anti-American." Killing tens of
thousands of Irakis is an act of liberation.

This war was planned months if not years ago and was never to be allowed
to yield to diplomacy. The fog of lies has enveloped both the human
cost and the economic cost of this unjust war. The latter will not only
be adverse to the interests of libraries but to every value of which
libraries are a symbol and manifestation.

How sad it is that the "leaders" of ALA could not bring themselves to
oppose this wicked violence and join the voices of the vast majority of
governments and people in the world.

Peace, Michael

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9169] RE: War
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:43:05 -0600
From: "Edelen, Joe" <jedelen[at]usd.edu>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>

That would, of course, Michael, be your personal opinion, as this in

I believe the time is here to support the President, whomever he is, and
the country. Most Americans believe the President is on the right path
and also believe that both the CIA and FBI are indeed defenders of
American freedoms and our way of life, not the enemy.

I would argue that the leaders of ALA have no business interjecting
themselves into this conflict. I don't believe that we have destroyed
any libraries in Iraq, yet.

Joe Edelen

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9172] Re: War
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:30:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Ann Sparanese <sparanese[at]yahoo.com>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>
Cc: ejjosey[at]mail.sis.pitt.edu, srrtac-l[at]ala.org

I think that my biggest disappointment in the ALA's
refusal to take a stand on sticking with the UN
process to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis
was that, with the exception of Joe Edelen, most of
those who rose to speak against it said that they,
personally, were against the war, but did not think
that ALA should make any kind of statement about it.

This type of "neutrality" is NOT neutral. Our failure
to add our voice to those demanding peace put us,
effectively and objectively, in the corner of those
who consent to war. It's very simple.

If a hostile amendment had not been proposed and
debate closed so soon, perhaps we might have gotten to
that issue. There are always specious reasons for
being "neutral" -- like when ALA was involved in the
debate over whether to take a stand against
segregration, some ALA councilors actually used the
argument that the ALA should not involve itself or
interfere in "local" issues. That was an argument for
"neutrality" in the face of racism that completely
supported the status quo.

Looking back on that, we should ponder. I suspect that
not many of us know our own history or read our policy
manual. I'm not lecturing anybody, 'cause I come late
to it as well. But as Howard Zinn says, "If you don't
know history, it's like you were born yesterday."

James Casey said, well, the ALA could take positions
on all sorts of things, but shouldn't. And we would
have disagreements about content and principles and
might end up voting down some things. This is fine.
But on the issue of the administration's preememptive
war plans, ALA councilors, one after the other,
stood up to say how much they were against war as
individuals, but didn't want ALA to go on record for
supporting the UN process (enshrined in the UN charer,
by the way).

And yes, if you want to know, I do believe we should
take a position supporting affirmative action. Do we
not, as ALA, practice affirmative action? What is
the Spectrum scholarship initiative about, if not
affirmative action in our profession?

Yup, it is too late to revisit our last resolution on
this war, but let us see what important "irrelevant to
libraries" issues present themselves to us in Toronto.

Ann Sparanese
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9175] Re the War
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:45:00 -0600
From: "Patricia Hogan" <p-hogan[at]dlsserver.dupagels.lib.il.us>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>

In today's New York Newsday, Ellis Hennican's op ed piece, A True Show
of Support," underscores that people can be against the war but very
concerned about the men and women who are going to fight in it. People
who have very serious concerns about the war aren't anti-American or
anti the troops. And it's a library concern because the war is used as
a justification for restraining access to information . And we need to
question the information or 'dis'information we are being given. If
people are concerned about the company of people who oppose this action
(war), surely the Pople and the heads of major Protestant denominations
have the credentials to speak out and they have done so.

It is possible to support the troops, abhor killing, fight for free
speech and ideas and oppose the war.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9177] War
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:32:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Blanche Woolls <bwoolls[at]wahoo.sjsu.edu>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>
Cc: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride -- and probably NOT off to

My wish:

We had purchased to pass out all over Washington D.C., a collection of
large "campaign" buttons at least 4" in diameter that read

DubYou is a Bully

or, for those who don't read phonics

Bush is a Bully

because that is what it is all about and no one, no marchers, no letter
writers, no speakers, no one writing a comic strip (and Doomsbury, while a
leader, has been followed by many others with anti-war messages) has been
able to get this bully to listen.

Think of the impact of every school student going home with this button
every person working in a restaurant or hotel or store. All the cab
drivers, -- greeting people getting off planes at National (Reagan) and
Dulles and maybe even Baltimore.

But we didn't do that either.d

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9178] Re: War
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:19:30 -0500
From: melora[at]prexar.com
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>

When I spoke at a session about civil rights on Saturday here in Maine, I
came after a state senator who was furious about the Maine senate's refusal
to pass a similar resolution on Iraq. It was very interesting to note that
the reasons pro and con were very similar to those we heard at Midwinter.

I guess my question is: When should groups of citizens who are organized for
various reasons (such as professional associations or governing bodies of
states) take positions as a group on larger issues which undeniably affect
many of their constituents, but which are not specific to the intents of
their groups? Is there ever a time when such groups should make this kind
of statement? Are there instances in which we as individuals can believe
that our groups should do so? It's a lot like that same *duties as a
citizen* argument we've heard in other contexts. I think that the *it's
none of our business* point of view may in some instances be called
isolationism. The only answer I can come up with is that it's important to
try to figure out what the majority of the group's members wish to have done
and act on that.

Anyway, food for thought.

Melora Ranney Norman, Maine

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ALACOUN:9182] Re: War
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:43:26 -0800
From: Michael Gorman <michaelg[at]csufresno.edu>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>
Cc: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org>

Dear Friends

There are people who genuinely believe that ALA shouldn't take a stand
on most social or public policy issues (as opposed to those who use it
as a fig leaf to cover their (usually) right-wing agendas). It seems to
me that those of us who believe such stands are appropriate should seek
some understanding with the first class of people--a delineation of
areas in which we can work together to make ALA more visible and
relevant in the wider world in which we live and work.

Peace, Michael


3. David Price: Librarians as FBI Extension Agents

David Price is an anthropologist who has written an article for
Counterpunch castigating Mitch Freedman for not leading ALA to
take a stronger position againt the USA Patriot Act. He would
like to see ALA honor its ethical prinicples to the point of
encouraging librarians to refuse cooperate with the FBI in certain

His article is here:

David Price: Librarians as FBI Extension Agents
Counterpunch, March 5, 2003

In response to questions from Mark Rosenzweig, Price sent the following
note and suggested that Mark distribute it:

Dear Mark,

First and foremost my critique of Mitch Freedman and the ALA's position is
an ethical critique. Part of what may be missing from my CounterPunch piece
is my interest and involvement in pushing my own professional association
(the American Anthropological Association) to revisit its own weak ethical
code of conduct protecting subjects of anthropological inquiry (if this of
any interest you can see some of the basic arguments in this piece I did for
The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001120&s=price or this
piece for the Royal (British) Anthropological Institute's Anthropology Today:
http://homepages.stmartin.edu/fac_staff/dprice/price-at-6-02-WWII.pdf ). In
a nut shell it is my view that as an anthropologist working in places like
Egypt and Yemen I have an ethical commitment to not come back to the USA and
turn over data I've collected to the CIA, and yes, I am prepared to go to
jail if this relationship is threatened--if I'm not, I better be ready to be
attacked by those I study--and attacked for good reason. If librarians
won't stand up for patron rights by following through with the claims of
their ethics code and refusing to cooperate with the FBI, then they better
be ready to be seen as the enemy, this seems pretty obvious. I take
professional ethical commitments very seriously and I see standing up for
ethics as no joke--an anthropologist in Philly was recently facing jail time
for not turning over her fieldnotes to a court in a wrongful death lawsuit.
If librarians won't consider backing up their ethical code with a trip to
jail, they need to get ready to be seen as working arm in arm with the FBI.

In the past five days I have received very detailed comment from well over
200 American librarians, a few vent some anger at me, but the majority
clearly express support for my critical view (which is not to say they are
calling for Mitch Freedman's resignation) as well as some clear outrage with
ALA leadership's lack of clarity concerning the importance of the ALA's code
of ethics. My hard-line critique on Mitch Freedman as ALA President is
directed only in part at Dr. Freedman (who I rightly or wrongly believe does
have a lot of power as a visible figurehead to send a strong and powerful
ethical message to librarians, patrons and the FBI) but at the ALA Council's
weak commitment to their own ethical code. My criticism of Mitch Freedman
is fundamentally a critique of the ALA, but like it or not, Dr. Freedman as
ALA President takes on the personage of this Association he represents. The
emails I am receiving from a number professional ethicists from around the
world have only made me more sure this judgment that the ALA as an
organization by setting aside its own ethical code is inviting the distrust
of its patrons, and the flood of email of support from academic patrons
suggest I may have hit a real nerve indicating a shift in attitudes toward
librarians. I'm not happy about this shift, and I know librarians aren't

Regards, David

4. Howard Fast, dead at 88, March 12 2003

In August of 2001, I published this excerpt from Howard Fast's memoir,
_Being Red_ (Houghton-Mifflin, 1990):

"A curious note in this curious year of 1949. On January 18, at a meeting
of the New York School Librarians Association, an announcement was made
instructing all school librarians to remove any and all copies of _Citizen
Tom Paine_ from their shelves. At the same time, J. Edgar Hoover, who had
become the shadow dictator of the United States, sent his G-men to the New
York Public Library and the main libraries of other cities, instructing the
librarians to remove Howard Fast's books from the shelves and destroy them.
Not the books of Karl Marx or Lenin, but the historical novels of Howard
Fast. God only knows why.

"Immediately, a committee of librarians of the New York Public Library
system invited me to speak to the librarians at the main building at Fifth
Avenue and Forty-second Street.

"About two hundred librarians and library workers were at the meeting,
chaired by a lovely white-haired lady, who said words to this effect: 'An
agent of the Justice Department came to me and told me that, by orders of
the director of the FBI, the books of Howard Fast were to be destroyed.
But this is not Nazi Germany and we do not burn books. Mr. Fast, your
books are safely stored in the basement, and when the time comes and this
madness has passed, they will be restored to the shelves. Now we would
like to hear what you think about this strange time we live in.'

"That was forty years ago, and she has passed away, but she taught me a
lesson in simple, quiet courage. She put her life and her career on the
line, for she was not young, and to be thrown out of her job would have
been like a death sentence. I don't remember her name. God bless her."


Here is a link to a good obituary of Mr. Fast in the Washington Post

Here is a link to an excellent website about him:
"Howard Fast: Comprehensive Bibliography & Texts"

5. When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History

by Thom Hartmann
CommonDreams.org, March 16, 2003

[Editor's note: I am including this article not because I believe history
repeats itself exactly, but because I believe certain patterns recur
and different human tendencies find their way to the surface at different
times. The better we understand history, the better we can respond when
fascist tendencies, which we normally assume are an inhuman aberration,
begin to express themselves within the boundaries of what we consider normal.]

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely
reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that
fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the
anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized
citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic
crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign
ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the
media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence
services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed.
(Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the
intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research
implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in
part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be
the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the
majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.
He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw
things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to
understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and
internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his
political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and
often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats,
foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and
media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an
occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls
and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he
didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response.
When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious
building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and
then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he
proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by
national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion,
"is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called
it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological
sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East
and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in
Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous
terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was
everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular
leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating
terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that
suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas
corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected
terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without
access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without
warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State"
passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil
libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the
national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then,
the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police
agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't
had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police
agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and
holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only
a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored
by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access
to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested
the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves
confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or
fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public
speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public
speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial
expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion
of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common
usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so,
instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it
as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a
1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie
"Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and
the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was
"the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands.
We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our
nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated
in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern
to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the
French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international
body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own
nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country
from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a
separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United
Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people
that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted
in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the
Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity."
Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared
"Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it
was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined
that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation
were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated
administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the
nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry
and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various
troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new
national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating
the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and
investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new
agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role
in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist
attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning
the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his
checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his
central security office began advertising a program encouraging people
to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so
successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon
being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included
opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite
target of his regime and the media he now controlled through
intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't
enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing
former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high
government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate
coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists
lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He
encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets
and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those
previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He
built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the
lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale
detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow.
Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of
dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had
started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose
Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his
bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people
away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government,
questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced
concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention
without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began
a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited
war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious
Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist
who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at
best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have
room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference
and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation,
provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike
preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first -
denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed
in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or
Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with
European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the
United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action
began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British
people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would
bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning
move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times
of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new
leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take
over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain
foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal
methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in
the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but
when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a
stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come,
but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his
politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a
campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation
itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the
terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting
the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there
could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein
Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a
nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking
the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or
"not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of
the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the
nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways
to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the
army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of
his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully
and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were
again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins
about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse
the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary
to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country
about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and
union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing
empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle
class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was
now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of
national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus
van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament
(Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to
legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his
successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German
blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the
history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time
magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland,
known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by
its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent
warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while
generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable
"shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors
of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense
University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government
the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the
largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to
keep power: /*"fas-cism *(fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that
exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the
merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent
nationalism." /

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to
remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the
United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt
chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and
reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons,
stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an
illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America
passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust
laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on
corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security,
and became the employer of last resort through programs to build
national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again

/Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the
author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The
Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom
Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog,
or web media so long as this credit is attached./

6. Wild Flower Show at the Free Library (1904)

Sixty Varieties Gathered in and About Oakland Exhibited in the Children's Room

Oakland, March 26. -- A beautiful collection of wild flowers gathered in
and about Oakland was exhibited today in the Children's room of the Oakland
Free Library, about sixty varieties in all being on exhibition, nearly all
of which came from the canyons and hills in Oakland and Berkeley.

The flower show was the idea of Librarian Greene and the flowers were
secured and arranged by a committee of public school teachers of Oakland.

The members of the committee were Miss F. J. de Wolf, chairman; Miss J. K.
Burrall; Miss C. J. Giamboni, Mrs. F. C. Preble, Miss M. Moore, Miss
Margaret Fortler, Miss E. M. Sherman, Miss Montgomery, Miss Margaret
Bradley, Miss Carolyn Reed, Miss Sally Hampton, Mrs. Van Duyne, Miss White,
Miss Storrie, Miss Julia Smith, Miss Vandergaw, Miss Pierce and Miss Wythe.

After the close of the flower show the flowers were given to local churches.

-- From the San Francisco Call, March 27, 1904

7. Call for Paper Topics

The "suggested paper topics" from the last regular issue were popular,
but a number of people commented that certain kinds of questions were
missing, and a few offered new paper topics to the collection.

I would like the collection of paper topics to grow, and I invite your
creative ideas.

Take a second look at the collection of paper topics I published two weeks
ago, and see if you can think of some additional ideas.

The existing collection is at

You can email your suggestions to me at rory[at]libr.org

Many thanks.

-Rory Litwin

L I B R A R Y   J U I C E

| http://libr.org/Juice/
| Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription
| fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and
| desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds
| to Rory Litwin, at 1821 'O' St. Apt. 9, Sacramento, CA 95814,
| or, alternatively, you may use PayPal, by going to:
| https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=rlitwin%40earthlink.net
| To subscribe, email majordomo[at]libr.org with the message
| "subscribe juice".
| To unsubscribe, email majordomo[at]libr.org with the message
| "unsubscribe juice".
| Other majordomo commands are available in the help file,
| which you can get by emailing majordomo[at]libr.org with the
| message "help".
| Original material and added value in Library Juice
| are dedicated to the public domain and may be copied
| freely with appropriate attribution; beyond that the
| publisher makes no guarantees. Library Juice is a
| free weekly publication edited and published by
| Rory Litwin. Original senders are credited wherever
| possible; opinions are theirs. If you are the author
| of some email in Library Juice which you want removed
| from the web, please write to me and I will remove it.
| Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
| Rory[at]libr.org