Everyone knows that the average librarian and the ALA are more politically left than the average American. Not that this means much in practice, since no one in Washington pays the slightest attention to the political ramblings of librarians or the ALA, at least as evidenced by the ALA's defeat on just about every political issue it as supported.
Also, the ALA does not usually represent or defend librarians in any way designed to help them find employment. One only has to think of the "librarian shortage" canard to see what I mean. You just have to read the mission statement and see the issues to see that librarians as such aren't very important to the ALA. It's the American Library Association, not librarian association.
But now the ALA has surprised me by reversing both of these tendencies with their position on the "No Child Left Behind" act, which, as we know, is one of President Bush's favorite acts. As you're probably aware, the "No Child Left Behind" act has been opposed for various reasons by many people. Public school teachers and their nefarious unions tend not to like it because they don't like the idea of pay raises being tied to student performance on standardized tests. Of course public school teachers and their unions don't seem to like pay raises being tied to anything other than them marking time in their jobs or moving up into a bloated bureaucracy or getting an "advanced" degree that if possible is even more ridiculous than the MLS, so intelligent and thoughtful people can dismiss their concerns as self-serving.
Plenty of Democrats oppose "No Child Left Behind," too. Coincidence? According to this article, Obama recently said he'd end NCLB if he is elected. According to this, Bill Richardson said to the DNC: "Look at the last twelve months. Not only are we still in Iraq, we still have the failure called No Child Left Behind." Many other Democrats think it needs an "overhaul," which seems to mean spending a lot more money on it without making it accountable in any way, and certainly without giving merit pay to teachers who improve student achievement. (Even if some Democrats secretly did like NCLB, they certainly wouldn't want to oppose any teacher's unions, because as we all know the teacher's unions just want the best for us and our children and to oppose them is to oppose education itself.)
The ALA seems to think the NCLB act is perfect, though, except for one crucial gap--that it doesn't include librarians. This just astounds me, because something the ALA might ordinarily be opposing they support, and they are doing so in a way designed to get librarians jobs. I'm not conversant with the details, and since I have absolutely no personal interest in school libraries or public schools I'm not going to bother to make myself conversant, but as I understand it there's some rule about requiring teachers of various kinds, and since librarians aren't teachers, some schools get rid of their librarians so they can keep the teachers when the budget gets tight. Don't quote me on that. Someone at ALA was telling me about it in earnest tones, but I was distracted because it was almost 6pm and martinis beckoned. Regardless, we can count this as another instance where there isn't a librarian shortage at all. Usually the ALA lies to everyone about that. Why not now?
The ALA wants something called the "Strengthening Kids’ Interest in Learning and Libraries (SKILLs) Act" to be included in an overhaul of NCLB. It's important to have the informal "kids" rather than the proper "children," because otherwise the acronym doesn't work. Among other things, the SKILLs Act:
"* Requires school districts, to the extent feasible, to ensure that every school within the district employs at least one state-certified school library media specialist in each school library;
* Establishes as a state goal that there be at least one state-certified school library media specialist in every public school no later than the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year;"
In other words, for whatever reason, it wants to get school librarians employed. This is absolutely astonishing. The ALA is not only implicitly admitting there's no shortage of school librarians, but they're saying there's a shortage of school librarian jobs and they want a law to fix it. There are some "talking points" about how children don't learn anything without librarians , but I'm not sure many people believe that. Besides, there's a difference between having a library with people working in it, and having a "state-certified school library media specialist in each school library." The whole "state-certified" thing doesn't impress me at all, and I can't help but notice that many of the best schools in the country (i.e., the posh private ones) don't require all this state certification and educrat baloney for their teachers or librarians. But if you can't provide a great education, at least provide some state-certified people. It makes everything look official.
So there we are. Nothing to get me particularly annoyed. This is just my expression of astonishment that the ALA is working on behalf of the school librarians to get more of their noses in the public trough by act of law . . . I mean get more of them employed, and all but approving an act that the Republicans and President Bush support. If Laura Bush could just use her librarian mojo on her husband and and get him to support this SKILLs thing, the ALA might have to endorse a Republican for President.
At least one thing doesn't surprise me. The ALA is supporting a political issue that seems destined to fail, since if this article in the Washington Post is accurate, it looks like Congress may not reauthorize NCLB. No reauthorization, no SKILLs. And once more the ALA spends our dues for nothing.
Showing posts with label ala politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ala politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Glorious President Speaks
The Glorious President of ALA spoke last week at the University of Buffalo. As with all ALA presidents, she is doing her best to bore a lot of people by emphasizing the same few points over and over. The emphases of the current Glorious President seem to be stereotypes and diversity. These sound like tiresome themes to me, but apparently the Buffalo crowd ate it up. According to the article, "Gender Week wrapped up this past Thursday with a lecture that shattered the stereotypical librarian image depicting a prudish, middle-aged, silence-loving white woman."
Shattered, no less. And how did she shatter that stereotype? Of course she referred to that NYT article on the "hip" librarians. Whereas some people thought the article was stupid (well, I at least thought it was stupid), the Glorious President loves it and seems to quote it all the time. We should all be more like these "hip" librarians, and less like the boring "white women [that] still make up the majority" of librarians.
"The article depicted the new, hip librarian as a person who could combine skillful use of technology with locating the right information upon request," the GP said. Did it? I don't recall that from the article. I recall it depicted a bunch of "activists" and "creative types" who wore used clothes and had a lot of tattoos and used librarianship as the functional equivalent of waiting tables to support their real lives. But then the Glorious President corrects herself.
"Reporter Kara Jesella described a group of 20 and 30-something librarians, gathered in a bar, drinking margaritas, wearing retro clothing and sporting an abundance of tattoos."
Yes, that's how I remember it.
Her lecture was entitled "Librarianship: A Testbed for Gender and Diversity Issues." What I like about the title is the way she's so upfront about her true agenda. Her agenda is political, and she wants to use librarianship and hence librarians to promote it. Librarians are her guinea pigs, the experimental subjects the Glorious President needs to usher in her utopia. According to the article, the lecture "also focused on how the history of the library system in the United States defines its present-day mission for librarians to advocate for social justice." The prose is a bit stilted, but I think you get the point. Our mission as librarians is to advocate for social justice. The great thing about the phrase "social justice" is its vagueness.
This isn't what I recall from the ALA's mission statement, which says that the "mission of the American Library Association is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all." If that's the mission of the ALA, then doesn't it make sense that the mission of librarians should have something to do with information services and access to information? By the twisted ideologic of the Glorious President and her regressive minions, only if this interest in information lets us advocate for social justice.
That's the only thing that makes sense if our mission is to advocate for social justice. So forget all that stuff about collecting, organizing, and disseminating information and go man the barricades. The revolution could begin any minute, and you know librarians will be in the vanguard. Except for the AL, of course, because come the revolution I'll be the first up against the wall.
Her speech went over well with some of the crowd who aren't as critical of the politicization of librarianship and using librarians as tools for an non-library political agenda as I am. "Roy's message of social activism appealed to [a] graduate student in library and information studies.
'I am glad to hear that the purpose of my profession is to ultimately change the world,' she said."
I bet she's glad. That way librarianship isn't so boring. The purpose of librarianship is to change the world, presumably one library card at a time. And another starry eyed idealist enters the profession, probably willing to work for peanuts so she can change the world, if she can find a job.
The Glorious President then discussed the "Diversity Counts" study, for what would a speech from the ALA president be without mentioning "diversity," another term as vague and devoid of exact meaning as "social justice." But then again, the advocates of "diversity" and "social justice" count on this vagueness.
This time we learn more than that librarians are mostly white women and that this is a bad thing. Now we're told as well that "the study showed that librarians are becoming better educated than ever before." That seemed unlikely, but fortunately the GP clarified that statement. "'Over the ten years (between 1990 and 2000), the number of degreed librarians increased by 21.6 percent,' Roy said." Oh, I see. They're not necessarily better educated, it's just that more of them have library degrees. Very different thing.
I would have been speechless after a performance like this, but the organizer of the event had to find something nice to say. "As ALA president, Loriene heads a very influential organization that lobbies Congress," he said. That was sweet. The "influential" part was a bit of a stretch, but the ALA does indeed lobby Congress, and we can see just how successful they've been in stopping CIPA, DOPA, and the death of Net Neutrality , among other things. We should just say it's the thought that counts.
I look forward to another nine months of being told that I'm not hip enough, or diverse enough, or concerned enough with promoting an extralibrary political agenda to be a good librarian. If I were a good librarian, I'd be the kind that the GP could hold up for praise in her political speeches. I'd be something other than a boring white woman, I'd go on about how my social activism trumps my professional responsibilities, and I'd have some tattoos. It should be a fun ride for us all.
Shattered, no less. And how did she shatter that stereotype? Of course she referred to that NYT article on the "hip" librarians. Whereas some people thought the article was stupid (well, I at least thought it was stupid), the Glorious President loves it and seems to quote it all the time. We should all be more like these "hip" librarians, and less like the boring "white women [that] still make up the majority" of librarians.
"The article depicted the new, hip librarian as a person who could combine skillful use of technology with locating the right information upon request," the GP said. Did it? I don't recall that from the article. I recall it depicted a bunch of "activists" and "creative types" who wore used clothes and had a lot of tattoos and used librarianship as the functional equivalent of waiting tables to support their real lives. But then the Glorious President corrects herself.
"Reporter Kara Jesella described a group of 20 and 30-something librarians, gathered in a bar, drinking margaritas, wearing retro clothing and sporting an abundance of tattoos."
Yes, that's how I remember it.
Her lecture was entitled "Librarianship: A Testbed for Gender and Diversity Issues." What I like about the title is the way she's so upfront about her true agenda. Her agenda is political, and she wants to use librarianship and hence librarians to promote it. Librarians are her guinea pigs, the experimental subjects the Glorious President needs to usher in her utopia. According to the article, the lecture "also focused on how the history of the library system in the United States defines its present-day mission for librarians to advocate for social justice." The prose is a bit stilted, but I think you get the point. Our mission as librarians is to advocate for social justice. The great thing about the phrase "social justice" is its vagueness.
This isn't what I recall from the ALA's mission statement, which says that the "mission of the American Library Association is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all." If that's the mission of the ALA, then doesn't it make sense that the mission of librarians should have something to do with information services and access to information? By the twisted ideologic of the Glorious President and her regressive minions, only if this interest in information lets us advocate for social justice.
That's the only thing that makes sense if our mission is to advocate for social justice. So forget all that stuff about collecting, organizing, and disseminating information and go man the barricades. The revolution could begin any minute, and you know librarians will be in the vanguard. Except for the AL, of course, because come the revolution I'll be the first up against the wall.
Her speech went over well with some of the crowd who aren't as critical of the politicization of librarianship and using librarians as tools for an non-library political agenda as I am. "Roy's message of social activism appealed to [a] graduate student in library and information studies.
'I am glad to hear that the purpose of my profession is to ultimately change the world,' she said."
I bet she's glad. That way librarianship isn't so boring. The purpose of librarianship is to change the world, presumably one library card at a time. And another starry eyed idealist enters the profession, probably willing to work for peanuts so she can change the world, if she can find a job.
The Glorious President then discussed the "Diversity Counts" study, for what would a speech from the ALA president be without mentioning "diversity," another term as vague and devoid of exact meaning as "social justice." But then again, the advocates of "diversity" and "social justice" count on this vagueness.
This time we learn more than that librarians are mostly white women and that this is a bad thing. Now we're told as well that "the study showed that librarians are becoming better educated than ever before." That seemed unlikely, but fortunately the GP clarified that statement. "'Over the ten years (between 1990 and 2000), the number of degreed librarians increased by 21.6 percent,' Roy said." Oh, I see. They're not necessarily better educated, it's just that more of them have library degrees. Very different thing.
I would have been speechless after a performance like this, but the organizer of the event had to find something nice to say. "As ALA president, Loriene heads a very influential organization that lobbies Congress," he said. That was sweet. The "influential" part was a bit of a stretch, but the ALA does indeed lobby Congress, and we can see just how successful they've been in stopping CIPA, DOPA, and the death of Net Neutrality , among other things. We should just say it's the thought that counts.
I look forward to another nine months of being told that I'm not hip enough, or diverse enough, or concerned enough with promoting an extralibrary political agenda to be a good librarian. If I were a good librarian, I'd be the kind that the GP could hold up for praise in her political speeches. I'd be something other than a boring white woman, I'd go on about how my social activism trumps my professional responsibilities, and I'd have some tattoos. It should be a fun ride for us all.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
More Islam and Intellectual Freedom
Does the violence criticism of Islam notoriously inspires pose a threat to intellectual freedom? That's the question.
Thanks to a reader comment yesterday, I discovered the threat to Opus' intellectual freedom. Here's a story you probably won't see the ALA refer to: Washington Post, Other Newspapers Won't Run 'Opus' Cartoon Mocking Radical Islam. It seems the editors at the Washington Post are sensitive to the feelings of religious folks, so when they got a new Opus cartoon mocking radical islamists, they checked with some of their Muslim staffers, who didn't like it. So they didn't print it. Sure, they sacrificed their intellectual freedom for religious sensitivity, but I just think that's sweet of them.
Oh wait, no they didn't. Since the week before they ran an Opus strip making fun of Jerry Falwell, I guess their religious sensitivity is only for groups like radical islamists who have a habit of killing people who disagree with them. So they sacrificed their intellectual freedom not for religious sensitivity but just for cowardice. Or perhaps just hypocrisy, since everyone knows that Christians are all evil while radical islamists are all good. The Post editors probably couldn't vet the Falwell cartoon with any of their Christian staffers, because they probably don't have any. Once again, the journalistic hypocritical double standard reigns, fueled by cowardice. (Printing Piss Christ is essential to our journalistic integrity and necessary to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable! Printing the Danish cartoons would be insensitive to a group of people we'd never want to live under, and besides they might kill us!)
I posted about this time last year on the cowardice and hypocrisy of the ALA for not speaking out against one of the most most powerful opponents of intellectual freedom. I'm sure nothing's changed. The ALA is too busy gearing up for their farcical "banned books" week and making sure we all know how to play videogames to speak up for intellectual freedom. The intellectual freedom folks at ALA like to pretend we live in a repressive society and that they're defending us somehow. They don't seem to notice that the major threat to intellectual freedom and liberal democracy doesn't come from some mother in Bumflap, GA who tries to remove Harry Potter from her child's school library, but from the self-censorship practiced when speaking about Islam. They like to make fun of book "challengers," because they know the Georgia mom isn't going to run into the ALA offices and blow herself up.
Do we stand for intellectual freedom and liberal democracy? I know my regressive librarian opponents don't. They despise liberal democracy because it isn't socialism, and they believe intellectual freedom is the freedom to think like them. But I would hope for better from the ALA. At least their rhetoric supports intellectual freedom.
I doubt the ALA will ever have the courage to take a stand about the deleterious effects radical and even fundamentalist Islam has on intellectual freedom and liberal democracy, not to mention women's rights, gay rights, and a whole host of other freedoms we fight for in America. No, that would just be judgmental, wouldn't it. We wouldn't want that, at least not against a group that might kill us. So let's just give up our freedoms so that we don't offend people who don't like freedom and might want to kill us. Hey, maybe we could all put ourselves under Sharia law, oppress women, and stone homosexuals as well. That way we can be sensitive. Personally, I'd rather be free.
Thanks to a reader comment yesterday, I discovered the threat to Opus' intellectual freedom. Here's a story you probably won't see the ALA refer to: Washington Post, Other Newspapers Won't Run 'Opus' Cartoon Mocking Radical Islam. It seems the editors at the Washington Post are sensitive to the feelings of religious folks, so when they got a new Opus cartoon mocking radical islamists, they checked with some of their Muslim staffers, who didn't like it. So they didn't print it. Sure, they sacrificed their intellectual freedom for religious sensitivity, but I just think that's sweet of them.
Oh wait, no they didn't. Since the week before they ran an Opus strip making fun of Jerry Falwell, I guess their religious sensitivity is only for groups like radical islamists who have a habit of killing people who disagree with them. So they sacrificed their intellectual freedom not for religious sensitivity but just for cowardice. Or perhaps just hypocrisy, since everyone knows that Christians are all evil while radical islamists are all good. The Post editors probably couldn't vet the Falwell cartoon with any of their Christian staffers, because they probably don't have any. Once again, the journalistic hypocritical double standard reigns, fueled by cowardice. (Printing Piss Christ is essential to our journalistic integrity and necessary to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable! Printing the Danish cartoons would be insensitive to a group of people we'd never want to live under, and besides they might kill us!)
I posted about this time last year on the cowardice and hypocrisy of the ALA for not speaking out against one of the most most powerful opponents of intellectual freedom. I'm sure nothing's changed. The ALA is too busy gearing up for their farcical "banned books" week and making sure we all know how to play videogames to speak up for intellectual freedom. The intellectual freedom folks at ALA like to pretend we live in a repressive society and that they're defending us somehow. They don't seem to notice that the major threat to intellectual freedom and liberal democracy doesn't come from some mother in Bumflap, GA who tries to remove Harry Potter from her child's school library, but from the self-censorship practiced when speaking about Islam. They like to make fun of book "challengers," because they know the Georgia mom isn't going to run into the ALA offices and blow herself up.
Do we stand for intellectual freedom and liberal democracy? I know my regressive librarian opponents don't. They despise liberal democracy because it isn't socialism, and they believe intellectual freedom is the freedom to think like them. But I would hope for better from the ALA. At least their rhetoric supports intellectual freedom.
I doubt the ALA will ever have the courage to take a stand about the deleterious effects radical and even fundamentalist Islam has on intellectual freedom and liberal democracy, not to mention women's rights, gay rights, and a whole host of other freedoms we fight for in America. No, that would just be judgmental, wouldn't it. We wouldn't want that, at least not against a group that might kill us. So let's just give up our freedoms so that we don't offend people who don't like freedom and might want to kill us. Hey, maybe we could all put ourselves under Sharia law, oppress women, and stone homosexuals as well. That way we can be sensitive. Personally, I'd rather be free.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The ALA's Choice
Those regressive librarians just can't deal with arguments, which is why they keep focusing on "anonymity" and how they don't like it. As most of you know by now, when the regressives say they don't like anonymous criticism, they're not just talking about anonymous comments on blogs. They're also talking about me, baby.
All their high-minded rhetoric doesn't bother me a bit, because I know it's just a red herring. Because they don't have any good arguments, they can't address any, so they're putting a bit of spin on the issue to draw attention away from the insubstantial basis for their attempting to politicize the entire ALA.
According to the "Librarian" blog, there's an editorial in the latest issue of Regressive Librarian, penned by all the usual suspects, on anonymity, and presumably how they don't like it. I say presumably, because even though there is a citation and a link, the link doesn't go to the editorial. The editorial is supposedly in the summer issue, but there's no summer issue listed online, and the last issue available online isn't completely online anyway. It's refreshing to see librarians putting out a publication and making some of it available only in print.
So while they focus their ire on anonymity, let's analyze the best arguments they've come up with for why the ALA Council should pass resolutions on non-library issues.
First, there's the very conservative, nay, even reactionary argument that "this is just the way we've been doing things for 30 years." How many of you have heard that argument from some of your older colleagues? A polite term for it is precedent, but since the precedent was established with lots of hostility and rancor, and has never gone uncontested, it hardly counts as a good precedent. That's what the slave owners kept telling the abolitionists. But we've always done it this way! But the regressives like conservative and reactionary arguments when they serve regressive purposes. Almost all of the regressives have put forward this pseudo-argument at one time or another.
Then, there's the wikiality argument some of the regressives are so fond of. If enough people believe something is true, then it's just true, darn it, and who are you to challenge the democritization of truth! If enough librarians say this is a library issue, then it just is. We don't need any arguments or justification for the totalitarian politicization of the world; we just need the votes! This is the favorite argument of Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude and the Griping Illini. They don't want too many people voting, though, just the relative handful of councilors who attend ALA, ones they can lock in a room and badger with their hostile irrelevancies until the sane councilors break down just to get them to shut up. They don't want to put any of these issues to a vote of the entire membership, that's for sure. To do that would be to circumvent the representative process we've established, as one of the regressives argued. They're all about process over democracy if it serves their purposes. "Participatory democracy"--the alleged goal of so many regressives--pales as a goal in comparison to political victory.
My favorite is the "public funds" argument, where anything that has any implications for public funding of anything becomes a "library issue," because libraries receive public funds. Since that's just about everything in our age of expansive and intrusive government, then everything is thus a library issue. QED. This suffers from some of the same problems as the wikiality argument, and is definitely governed by the blowhard fallacy. This argument assumes that librarians as librarians have something worthwhile to contribute to absolutely every debate. Does that seem like a reasonable assumption? Would the regressive librarians agree that every other organized group whose members receive public funds has something to contribute to every public debate by virtue of their profession? Does the library custodial staff have the same expertise to contribute to such debates, or only the exalted librarians? How about the postal workers? Is everything a "postal issue" as well as being a library issue? Should we librarians pay attention to what postal workers have to say about intellectual freedom, because everything is a postal issue? Oh, and the military. They receive public funds. Does everything then become a military issue as well? Are the regressives thus providing the justification for the militarization of society? And what about those librarians who don't work for public libraries, but work at private colleges or law firms or whatever. Do they not have a say because they don't receive public funds? And let's not even mention those regressives so prominent in this debate who aren't even librarians. Why should we listen to them?
And then of course there's the red herring of anonymity. We can't take any of these arguments or concerns seriously, because some of the people putting them forward are anonymous! Of course no one believes they'd address the arguments if their opponents put their names on them. No, then they'd just call them names and smear them in public. Either way it's a convenient out for people who don't have any arguments, very convenient indeed. Either way the approach is to smear opponents rather than engage in debate, and that's a lot easier than thinking and a lot more fun than being civil for people who actively hate anyone who disagrees with them on anything.
I would mention other arguments, but the regressives don't have any. Conservatism and reaction, wikiality, smear tactics, and red herrings--these are the tools in the regressive toolbox.
Perhaps Michael Gorman, who looks like he'll be arguing the regressive cause at the ALA debate, will come up with a new one, but I doubt it.
And then there are those of us who think the ALA should focus on library issues, because many of us are librarians and we actually know something about libraries. The ALA could just possibly have some sway in a debate on access to information, intellectual freedom, rural access to libraries, and other political and library issues where librarians could speak with authority and expertise. And the ALA could certainly speak up more on behalf of librarians regarding such issues as library compensation, library school recruitment and accreditation, library jobs, etc..
But dealing with those issues is painful and difficult and tedious, and not nearly as much fun as being on the side of the angels and joining the Second Life Liberation Army. Focusing any attention at all on non-library issues not only gives the regressives a chance to be blowhards--a role they dearly love to play--but also draws attention away from all those boring library issues. The regressive blowhards want to be responsible for all of society, but not for anything related to libraries. It's easy to stand up and say you don't like something that you can't do anything about. Okay, so librarians don't like war. That's fine. I don't like war. But nothing the ALA does is going to stop any wars. If the ALA focused on library issues, people might actually expect some positive change. There might be failure, but in this case failure is better than irrelevance.
The ALA faces an important choice, and it's not the choice between saving the world and ignoring their "social responsibility." The ALA Council can waste time passing resolutions on non-library issues where it's guaranteed that what they say will have no relevance or interest or effect at all, or they can try to address library issues where there's just the slimmest possibility they can do some good.
That's the choice, and let's hope from now on the ALA Council makes the right decision.
All their high-minded rhetoric doesn't bother me a bit, because I know it's just a red herring. Because they don't have any good arguments, they can't address any, so they're putting a bit of spin on the issue to draw attention away from the insubstantial basis for their attempting to politicize the entire ALA.
According to the "Librarian" blog, there's an editorial in the latest issue of Regressive Librarian, penned by all the usual suspects, on anonymity, and presumably how they don't like it. I say presumably, because even though there is a citation and a link, the link doesn't go to the editorial. The editorial is supposedly in the summer issue, but there's no summer issue listed online, and the last issue available online isn't completely online anyway. It's refreshing to see librarians putting out a publication and making some of it available only in print.
So while they focus their ire on anonymity, let's analyze the best arguments they've come up with for why the ALA Council should pass resolutions on non-library issues.
First, there's the very conservative, nay, even reactionary argument that "this is just the way we've been doing things for 30 years." How many of you have heard that argument from some of your older colleagues? A polite term for it is precedent, but since the precedent was established with lots of hostility and rancor, and has never gone uncontested, it hardly counts as a good precedent. That's what the slave owners kept telling the abolitionists. But we've always done it this way! But the regressives like conservative and reactionary arguments when they serve regressive purposes. Almost all of the regressives have put forward this pseudo-argument at one time or another.
Then, there's the wikiality argument some of the regressives are so fond of. If enough people believe something is true, then it's just true, darn it, and who are you to challenge the democritization of truth! If enough librarians say this is a library issue, then it just is. We don't need any arguments or justification for the totalitarian politicization of the world; we just need the votes! This is the favorite argument of Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude and the Griping Illini. They don't want too many people voting, though, just the relative handful of councilors who attend ALA, ones they can lock in a room and badger with their hostile irrelevancies until the sane councilors break down just to get them to shut up. They don't want to put any of these issues to a vote of the entire membership, that's for sure. To do that would be to circumvent the representative process we've established, as one of the regressives argued. They're all about process over democracy if it serves their purposes. "Participatory democracy"--the alleged goal of so many regressives--pales as a goal in comparison to political victory.
My favorite is the "public funds" argument, where anything that has any implications for public funding of anything becomes a "library issue," because libraries receive public funds. Since that's just about everything in our age of expansive and intrusive government, then everything is thus a library issue. QED. This suffers from some of the same problems as the wikiality argument, and is definitely governed by the blowhard fallacy. This argument assumes that librarians as librarians have something worthwhile to contribute to absolutely every debate. Does that seem like a reasonable assumption? Would the regressive librarians agree that every other organized group whose members receive public funds has something to contribute to every public debate by virtue of their profession? Does the library custodial staff have the same expertise to contribute to such debates, or only the exalted librarians? How about the postal workers? Is everything a "postal issue" as well as being a library issue? Should we librarians pay attention to what postal workers have to say about intellectual freedom, because everything is a postal issue? Oh, and the military. They receive public funds. Does everything then become a military issue as well? Are the regressives thus providing the justification for the militarization of society? And what about those librarians who don't work for public libraries, but work at private colleges or law firms or whatever. Do they not have a say because they don't receive public funds? And let's not even mention those regressives so prominent in this debate who aren't even librarians. Why should we listen to them?
And then of course there's the red herring of anonymity. We can't take any of these arguments or concerns seriously, because some of the people putting them forward are anonymous! Of course no one believes they'd address the arguments if their opponents put their names on them. No, then they'd just call them names and smear them in public. Either way it's a convenient out for people who don't have any arguments, very convenient indeed. Either way the approach is to smear opponents rather than engage in debate, and that's a lot easier than thinking and a lot more fun than being civil for people who actively hate anyone who disagrees with them on anything.
I would mention other arguments, but the regressives don't have any. Conservatism and reaction, wikiality, smear tactics, and red herrings--these are the tools in the regressive toolbox.
Perhaps Michael Gorman, who looks like he'll be arguing the regressive cause at the ALA debate, will come up with a new one, but I doubt it.
And then there are those of us who think the ALA should focus on library issues, because many of us are librarians and we actually know something about libraries. The ALA could just possibly have some sway in a debate on access to information, intellectual freedom, rural access to libraries, and other political and library issues where librarians could speak with authority and expertise. And the ALA could certainly speak up more on behalf of librarians regarding such issues as library compensation, library school recruitment and accreditation, library jobs, etc..
But dealing with those issues is painful and difficult and tedious, and not nearly as much fun as being on the side of the angels and joining the Second Life Liberation Army. Focusing any attention at all on non-library issues not only gives the regressives a chance to be blowhards--a role they dearly love to play--but also draws attention away from all those boring library issues. The regressive blowhards want to be responsible for all of society, but not for anything related to libraries. It's easy to stand up and say you don't like something that you can't do anything about. Okay, so librarians don't like war. That's fine. I don't like war. But nothing the ALA does is going to stop any wars. If the ALA focused on library issues, people might actually expect some positive change. There might be failure, but in this case failure is better than irrelevance.
The ALA faces an important choice, and it's not the choice between saving the world and ignoring their "social responsibility." The ALA Council can waste time passing resolutions on non-library issues where it's guaranteed that what they say will have no relevance or interest or effect at all, or they can try to address library issues where there's just the slimmest possibility they can do some good.
That's the choice, and let's hope from now on the ALA Council makes the right decision.
Monday, June 18, 2007
ALA Debate on Non-Library Issues
I'm not sure if this is a good sign or a bad sign for those opposed to the regressive librarians' totalitarian politicization of every aspect of life, but I'll try to be hopeful. There's going to be a debate at ALA this time on whether the ALA should take stands on non-library issues. Well, no, that's not quite right. The title is already skewed toward the regressives, as you can see here:
"Saturday, June 23, 3:30-5:00 pm
Should ALA Take a Stand on the War in Iraq and Other “Non-Library”
Issues?
ALA Membership Forum and Meeting I, Convention Center, Ballroom A
So it's not a debate on non-library issues, but "non-library" issues. I've noticed ALA always likes to use the scare quotes to poison the well on any debate before it even starts. For example, the "Banned Books" contingent says some books are "controversial," not just controversial. Since many of those books have in fact caused controversy, they are definitely controversial, and the scare quotes are apparently written by idiots who don't know what the word means, or who somehow think that if one side of a controversy calls it a "controversy," then the controversy doesn't exist.
But I digress, or perhaps I just "digress."
Here's the description:
"What is a “non-library” issue anyway? Should ALA take a stand on the war in Iraq, the minimum wage, or equal rights for women? On one hand, some people say we don't have enough time to consider fully issues like the closing of libraries and library staff wages.
On the other hand, ALA has taken a stand on “non-library” issues like civil rights for decades, and these issues affect us and our families and co-workers. Where do we draw the line?
Forum Speakers: "pro" - Michael Gorman, Immediate Past President; "con" - Steve Matthews, Councilor"
I think you all know where I stand. If the best argument for addressing non-library issues is the precedent of the regressive librarians forcing their agenda on everyone else for 30 years, then it isn't much of an argument. If the ALA is justified in taking a stand on everything that might affect anyone in the country, then the gate to inanity has been opened wide indeed. Perhaps Michael Gorman can use the Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude's logic that if enough librarians believe something to be true, than it's true.
I can't help but feel, perhaps wrongly, that I've had some influence on this debate over the past year. Last year the Council passed resolutions on Samuel Alito and genocide in Darfur (they didn't like either one), resolutions that of course had no effect on anything other than to make some librarians feel like they were on the side of the angels. Then the regressives got their collectivist asses kicked at Midwinter on Bush and War issues. And now the public debate isn't on what stand should be taken, but about whether the ALA should even do things like this at all. It's a small victory for non-totalitarians everywhere.
I also notice that the debate isn't about neutrality, or even "neutrality," which SFTD and the Griping Illini like to throw into the mix occasionally. Since I've never argued that the ALA should be politically neutral, only that it should not address non-library issues, I'm pleased that the debate is framed in those terms. There are plenty of ALA political debates I've avoided (e.g., the Patriot Act), because my main issue isn't to avoid politics, but to avoid the ALA and by association all librarians from looking like ignorant blowhards, which is what they do when they start spouting their opinions on any subject whatsoever.
There are many political issues the ALA is completely justified in addressing, and there are many library issues that the ALA isn't addressing. There's a lot of room for the ALA to help people and to try to make the world a better place. But if the regressive librarians have their way, then the ALA Council will spend a lot of time arguing over issues that have nothing to do with librarianship and passing resolutions that will affect absolutely no one and in addition make librarians look like blowhards. Apparently, the regressive librarians think that libraries and librarianship are boring, and that the problems of librarians and libraries aren't important.
Well, libraries and librarianship might very well be boring, and the problems of librarians unimportant, but these are the areas with problems the ALA just might be able to solve. Until the ALA can get its own house in order and effectively address library issues, why would anyone care what they have to say about non-library issues?
"Saturday, June 23, 3:30-5:00 pm
Should ALA Take a Stand on the War in Iraq and Other “Non-Library”
Issues?
ALA Membership Forum and Meeting I, Convention Center, Ballroom A
So it's not a debate on non-library issues, but "non-library" issues. I've noticed ALA always likes to use the scare quotes to poison the well on any debate before it even starts. For example, the "Banned Books" contingent says some books are "controversial," not just controversial. Since many of those books have in fact caused controversy, they are definitely controversial, and the scare quotes are apparently written by idiots who don't know what the word means, or who somehow think that if one side of a controversy calls it a "controversy," then the controversy doesn't exist.
But I digress, or perhaps I just "digress."
Here's the description:
"What is a “non-library” issue anyway? Should ALA take a stand on the war in Iraq, the minimum wage, or equal rights for women? On one hand, some people say we don't have enough time to consider fully issues like the closing of libraries and library staff wages.
On the other hand, ALA has taken a stand on “non-library” issues like civil rights for decades, and these issues affect us and our families and co-workers. Where do we draw the line?
Forum Speakers: "pro" - Michael Gorman, Immediate Past President; "con" - Steve Matthews, Councilor"
I think you all know where I stand. If the best argument for addressing non-library issues is the precedent of the regressive librarians forcing their agenda on everyone else for 30 years, then it isn't much of an argument. If the ALA is justified in taking a stand on everything that might affect anyone in the country, then the gate to inanity has been opened wide indeed. Perhaps Michael Gorman can use the Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude's logic that if enough librarians believe something to be true, than it's true.
I can't help but feel, perhaps wrongly, that I've had some influence on this debate over the past year. Last year the Council passed resolutions on Samuel Alito and genocide in Darfur (they didn't like either one), resolutions that of course had no effect on anything other than to make some librarians feel like they were on the side of the angels. Then the regressives got their collectivist asses kicked at Midwinter on Bush and War issues. And now the public debate isn't on what stand should be taken, but about whether the ALA should even do things like this at all. It's a small victory for non-totalitarians everywhere.
I also notice that the debate isn't about neutrality, or even "neutrality," which SFTD and the Griping Illini like to throw into the mix occasionally. Since I've never argued that the ALA should be politically neutral, only that it should not address non-library issues, I'm pleased that the debate is framed in those terms. There are plenty of ALA political debates I've avoided (e.g., the Patriot Act), because my main issue isn't to avoid politics, but to avoid the ALA and by association all librarians from looking like ignorant blowhards, which is what they do when they start spouting their opinions on any subject whatsoever.
There are many political issues the ALA is completely justified in addressing, and there are many library issues that the ALA isn't addressing. There's a lot of room for the ALA to help people and to try to make the world a better place. But if the regressive librarians have their way, then the ALA Council will spend a lot of time arguing over issues that have nothing to do with librarianship and passing resolutions that will affect absolutely no one and in addition make librarians look like blowhards. Apparently, the regressive librarians think that libraries and librarianship are boring, and that the problems of librarians and libraries aren't important.
Well, libraries and librarianship might very well be boring, and the problems of librarians unimportant, but these are the areas with problems the ALA just might be able to solve. Until the ALA can get its own house in order and effectively address library issues, why would anyone care what they have to say about non-library issues?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Be a Regressive Tool!
The Regressive Librarians want you to be their tool. I've been telling you that they are interested in librarianship only insofar as it can further their political agena, which means their political ideology comes first, and librarianship comes second. Okay, who're we kidding, librarianship doesn't figure at all. It's only a tool in their political arsenal. And if the entire field of librarianship is just a tool for ideological purposes, that means that you librarians are also just ideological tools. Welcome to the world of political ideologues. When a regressive librarian wants me to be their tool, I say, Sign me up, baby!
I realize I'm being vague, so let's look at yet another case in point. This comes from a blog oddly enough called "Librarian." [Update: The "Librarian" blog changed the post! It was about the USSF, but now is about something else. It looks like the Humorless Unionator isn't completely humorless after all. You go, girl!] I say oddly enough because this is one of the umpteen blogs with "librarian" in the title run by the Humorless Unionator, who is not a librarian, but, as some of my erstwhile critics have pointed out, a "distinguished" library school professor somewhere down in the Sunshine State. I have no idea what it takes to be distinguished down there, since the only time I've been to the Sunshine State was during that ALA Conference in Orlando. Being able to survive that climate is enough to distinguish anyone as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, Librarian is, as I've said, one of her myriad blogs with "librarian" in the title. I guess she realizes that "librarian" has at least some authority with people, unlike "library school professor." I'm trying to imagine blogs entitled "A Library School Professor at the Kitchen Table" or "Union Library School Professor" or just "Library School Professor." Nope, best stick with "librarian."
Besides the duplicitous nomenclature the other distinctive feature of these blogs is that they don't have anything to do with librarianship, which brings me to today's feature. I almost waited until next week to bring this to you, since I'm vacationing and all. I only ran across it by chance. I've got a new folder in my Bloglines labeled "Gits," and when anything pops up I read it. I should have just stuck with the news.
So the ideological library school professor posing as a librarian is advertising the Regressive Librarians Guild's participation in something called the US Social Forum. Never heard of it? No, neither had I. But now's your chance to get involved.
"* Another World is Possible - Another U.S. is Necessary! June 27-July 1, 2007- Atlanta.
Librarians with two organizations based in the U.S., the Progressive Librarians Guild and RadicalReference, will attend the US Social Forum to engage in four primary activities. Our work will be framed by the question: In what ways can the field of librarianship help realize the goals set by the social forum movement?" (Why Atlanta? "The roots of oppression, injustice, exploitation and social control run deep in Southern soil. ")
Tempting, isn't it? Notice the question. Not, how can we bring the values of librarianship to the "social forum movement," but how can we use librarianship to further the "social forum" goals, whatever those might be. This is regressive librarianship at its clearest. For the librarians they might pose as librarians, but for the "Social Forum" movement, whatever that is, the truth comes out. Let's put the question another way: How can we use libraries and librarians as tools to further your political agenda, Oh Glorious Social Forum Movement?
So, you might ask, what are the goals of the social forum movement? I was curious, though I don't know why. While I am interested in libraries, I'm not terribly interested in politics, which is why I don't like it when the regressives try to make me their tool.
If we go to the USSF's website itself, we can see that they're a typical regressive organization - that is, long on good feeling, short on coherence. They want good stuff to happen to everybody and for oppressed people to not be oppressed anymore. Sounds good to me. Perhaps I'll join. When you get to specifics, they're slightly more hazy. If you go to their charter of principles and other places on their site, you'll discover some things they definitely don't like. They don't like "neo-liberalism," for example. Something tells me they don't like old liberalism either. They don't like free trade. They don't seem to like free anything, since nowhere on their site did I find any mention of freedom as a goal. Freedom is a goal of liberals, you might remember. They mention it prominently. It's not a goal of the regressives.
But they do like "participatory democracy," and considering that's the least efficient way of making political decisions, I think we're all safe from them. Liberals tend to like representative democracy, understanding that democracy is a procedure for making decisions, legitimizing governments, and peacefully changing regimes, not some lifestyle to be gushed over or some end in itself.
Here's what they say about themselves: "The World Social Forum is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a planetary society directed towards fruitful relationships among Mankind and between it and the Earth." There, that sounds specific, doesn't it.
But there's more: "The alternatives proposed at the World Social Forum ... are designed to ensure that globalization in solidarity will prevail as a new stage in world history." Globalization in solidarity? "This will respect universal human rights, and those of all citizens - men and women - of all nations and the environment and will rest on democratic international systems and institutions at the service of social justice, equality and the sovereignty of peoples." Eutopia is coming, brought to you by the regressives. And how to they plan to achieve this? What are they going to do in this exciting Social Forum?
"The meetings of the World Social Forum do not deliberate on behalf of the World Social Forum as a body. No one, therefore, will be authorized, on behalf of any of the editions of the Forum, to express positions claiming to be those of all its participants. The participants in the Forum shall not be called on to take decisions as a body, whether by vote or acclamation, on declarations or proposals for action that would commit all, or the majority, of them and that propose to be taken as establishing positions of the Forum as a body. It thus does not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings, nor does it intend to constitute the only option for interrelation and action by the organizations and movements that participate in it."
I don't understand. Can you be a little more specific?
"The World Social Forum is a plural, diversified, non-confessional, non-governmental and non-party context that, in a decentralized fashion, interrelates organizations and movements engaged in concrete action at levels from the local to the international to build another world."
Oh. So in other words, the Social Forum is a great big regressive wankfest. If you don't believe me, check out some of the features of this year's Social Forum.
They're going to start with a march, naturally. They're going to "Hit the Streets," "Make it Beautiful," and "Make it Smooth." This'll be a great start to the conference, because there's little regressives like more than linking arms and marching somewhere chanting slogans and annoying people. And they want everyone to look pretty. "Plan to join the march as a visible contingent—wear matching shirts, carry banners, flags, props or puppets to represent your organization." Puppets? I don't even want to know.
If you're the kind of person who gets excited about marching through the streets carrying matching puppets, wait until you get a load of the workshops:
"Fighting Neoliberalism with Reproductive Justice for Women by the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective (The ALA should pass a resolution on this.)
Poetry & Liberation by the The Bread is Rising Poetry Collective (Everything is a "collective" for the regressives. This one seems to think poetry is going to liberate the oppressed. Don't the know the oppressed will be liberated with library cards?)
SONG CIRCLE: Singing for our Lives (Indeed.)
Because You Can't Have a Movement Without a Groove: The Unstoppable Beat of Collective Action (I bet this one is going to overflow with stupid metaphors and sing-songy speeches.)
A Free University In A Free Society by the Students for a Democratic Society ("Sure, it sounds hella cool, but what would "A Free University in a Free Society" actually look like?")
Building revolutionary movements in 3D interactive environments by the Second Life Liberation Army (Is this a joke? I suppose the goal is free the oppressed avatars.)"
There are hundreds of these things. How could we possibly choose amongst them? I hope they're podcasting them all, so I can catch up later.
There's something for everyone, young and old alike. They even have Youth Rock, who would like to give "Shout outs to those that have been holding it down and working extra hard."
All in all, a few glorious days of solidarity, marching, chanting, yelling, screaming, wanking, and patchouli.
And if the Regressive Librarians Guild has their way, libraries and librarians can all become tools to further the incoherent goals of the Social Forum, goals which include carrying matching puppets, singing for our lives, collectivizing our poetry, and wearing patchouli.
Welcome to the incoherent revolution.
I realize I'm being vague, so let's look at yet another case in point. This comes from a blog oddly enough called "Librarian." [Update: The "Librarian" blog changed the post! It was about the USSF, but now is about something else. It looks like the Humorless Unionator isn't completely humorless after all. You go, girl!] I say oddly enough because this is one of the umpteen blogs with "librarian" in the title run by the Humorless Unionator, who is not a librarian, but, as some of my erstwhile critics have pointed out, a "distinguished" library school professor somewhere down in the Sunshine State. I have no idea what it takes to be distinguished down there, since the only time I've been to the Sunshine State was during that ALA Conference in Orlando. Being able to survive that climate is enough to distinguish anyone as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, Librarian is, as I've said, one of her myriad blogs with "librarian" in the title. I guess she realizes that "librarian" has at least some authority with people, unlike "library school professor." I'm trying to imagine blogs entitled "A Library School Professor at the Kitchen Table" or "Union Library School Professor" or just "Library School Professor." Nope, best stick with "librarian."
Besides the duplicitous nomenclature the other distinctive feature of these blogs is that they don't have anything to do with librarianship, which brings me to today's feature. I almost waited until next week to bring this to you, since I'm vacationing and all. I only ran across it by chance. I've got a new folder in my Bloglines labeled "Gits," and when anything pops up I read it. I should have just stuck with the news.
So the ideological library school professor posing as a librarian is advertising the Regressive Librarians Guild's participation in something called the US Social Forum. Never heard of it? No, neither had I. But now's your chance to get involved.
"* Another World is Possible - Another U.S. is Necessary! June 27-July 1, 2007- Atlanta.
Librarians with two organizations based in the U.S., the Progressive Librarians Guild and RadicalReference, will attend the US Social Forum to engage in four primary activities. Our work will be framed by the question: In what ways can the field of librarianship help realize the goals set by the social forum movement?" (Why Atlanta? "The roots of oppression, injustice, exploitation and social control run deep in Southern soil. ")
Tempting, isn't it? Notice the question. Not, how can we bring the values of librarianship to the "social forum movement," but how can we use librarianship to further the "social forum" goals, whatever those might be. This is regressive librarianship at its clearest. For the librarians they might pose as librarians, but for the "Social Forum" movement, whatever that is, the truth comes out. Let's put the question another way: How can we use libraries and librarians as tools to further your political agenda, Oh Glorious Social Forum Movement?
So, you might ask, what are the goals of the social forum movement? I was curious, though I don't know why. While I am interested in libraries, I'm not terribly interested in politics, which is why I don't like it when the regressives try to make me their tool.
If we go to the USSF's website itself, we can see that they're a typical regressive organization - that is, long on good feeling, short on coherence. They want good stuff to happen to everybody and for oppressed people to not be oppressed anymore. Sounds good to me. Perhaps I'll join. When you get to specifics, they're slightly more hazy. If you go to their charter of principles and other places on their site, you'll discover some things they definitely don't like. They don't like "neo-liberalism," for example. Something tells me they don't like old liberalism either. They don't like free trade. They don't seem to like free anything, since nowhere on their site did I find any mention of freedom as a goal. Freedom is a goal of liberals, you might remember. They mention it prominently. It's not a goal of the regressives.
But they do like "participatory democracy," and considering that's the least efficient way of making political decisions, I think we're all safe from them. Liberals tend to like representative democracy, understanding that democracy is a procedure for making decisions, legitimizing governments, and peacefully changing regimes, not some lifestyle to be gushed over or some end in itself.
Here's what they say about themselves: "The World Social Forum is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a planetary society directed towards fruitful relationships among Mankind and between it and the Earth." There, that sounds specific, doesn't it.
But there's more: "The alternatives proposed at the World Social Forum ... are designed to ensure that globalization in solidarity will prevail as a new stage in world history." Globalization in solidarity? "This will respect universal human rights, and those of all citizens - men and women - of all nations and the environment and will rest on democratic international systems and institutions at the service of social justice, equality and the sovereignty of peoples." Eutopia is coming, brought to you by the regressives. And how to they plan to achieve this? What are they going to do in this exciting Social Forum?
"The meetings of the World Social Forum do not deliberate on behalf of the World Social Forum as a body. No one, therefore, will be authorized, on behalf of any of the editions of the Forum, to express positions claiming to be those of all its participants. The participants in the Forum shall not be called on to take decisions as a body, whether by vote or acclamation, on declarations or proposals for action that would commit all, or the majority, of them and that propose to be taken as establishing positions of the Forum as a body. It thus does not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings, nor does it intend to constitute the only option for interrelation and action by the organizations and movements that participate in it."
I don't understand. Can you be a little more specific?
"The World Social Forum is a plural, diversified, non-confessional, non-governmental and non-party context that, in a decentralized fashion, interrelates organizations and movements engaged in concrete action at levels from the local to the international to build another world."
Oh. So in other words, the Social Forum is a great big regressive wankfest. If you don't believe me, check out some of the features of this year's Social Forum.
They're going to start with a march, naturally. They're going to "Hit the Streets," "Make it Beautiful," and "Make it Smooth." This'll be a great start to the conference, because there's little regressives like more than linking arms and marching somewhere chanting slogans and annoying people. And they want everyone to look pretty. "Plan to join the march as a visible contingent—wear matching shirts, carry banners, flags, props or puppets to represent your organization." Puppets? I don't even want to know.
If you're the kind of person who gets excited about marching through the streets carrying matching puppets, wait until you get a load of the workshops:
"Fighting Neoliberalism with Reproductive Justice for Women by the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective (The ALA should pass a resolution on this.)
Poetry & Liberation by the The Bread is Rising Poetry Collective (Everything is a "collective" for the regressives. This one seems to think poetry is going to liberate the oppressed. Don't the know the oppressed will be liberated with library cards?)
SONG CIRCLE: Singing for our Lives (Indeed.)
Because You Can't Have a Movement Without a Groove: The Unstoppable Beat of Collective Action (I bet this one is going to overflow with stupid metaphors and sing-songy speeches.)
A Free University In A Free Society by the Students for a Democratic Society ("Sure, it sounds hella cool, but what would "A Free University in a Free Society" actually look like?")
Building revolutionary movements in 3D interactive environments by the Second Life Liberation Army (Is this a joke? I suppose the goal is free the oppressed avatars.)"
There are hundreds of these things. How could we possibly choose amongst them? I hope they're podcasting them all, so I can catch up later.
There's something for everyone, young and old alike. They even have Youth Rock, who would like to give "Shout outs to those that have been holding it down and working extra hard."
All in all, a few glorious days of solidarity, marching, chanting, yelling, screaming, wanking, and patchouli.
And if the Regressive Librarians Guild has their way, libraries and librarians can all become tools to further the incoherent goals of the Social Forum, goals which include carrying matching puppets, singing for our lives, collectivizing our poetry, and wearing patchouli.
Welcome to the incoherent revolution.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Random Radical References
These long warm days aren't energizing me for blogging. I'm 1458 entries behind in my feed reader, and it's only by keeping up with the bibliotekblogosphere that I'm able to find library nonsense to write about.
Apparently those Radical Reference folks feel enervated as well, because ALA Annual in DC is only a couple of weeks away, and they haven't organized any radically referential protests. Of course this time last year I got excited over the prospect of the radical referrers protesting. "Stay tuned for info on possibly protests of Madeleine Albright and Laura Bush," they said. I stayed tuned, but nothing happened! And this year they don't even have a link for Annual 2007. We're going to Washington DC, and they're not even going to protest anything? I find this sad. Perhaps the radical referrers are all in Germany preparing to protest the G-8 meeting, handing out flyers with information on how to block roads and break windows and such. After all, protesters always need something to protest about, otherwise they don't get their emotional thrills. I assume most of them protest for the emotional thrill, because it's certainly not like they change anything.
I thought I'd read somewhere that the Regressive Librarians were going to back an ALA Council resolution to defund the Iraq War, but I couldn't find the reference again, not that I looked very hard. That will certainly be exciting, and if the resolution succeeds we can all relax in the knowledge that the boys will be coming home again soon, because after all, when the ALA speaks, people listen. After successfully blocking the confirmation of Justice Alito and directly causing the impeachment of President Bush and ending the genocide in Darfur, the ALA Council's record of affecting non-library issues is proven.
But maybe saner heads will prevail. Speaking of, I was surprised to see a sane head in the latest SRRT Newsletter (page 11). A socially concerned member of SRRT, Todd Grooten, wrote an opinion piece protesting SRRT's overwhelming concern with non-library issues and their lack of concern with the problems of actual librarians, including the problem of librarian unemployment. Here's an excerpt:
"I have dealt with chronic unemployment since graduating with my MLS in May 2003. I know I am not the only new(ish) librarian suffering from this problem. It has been discussed in many of the discussion lists geared towards people new to the profession (Nexgenlib, Newlib). When I posted a message about this topic to the SRRT discussion list last year, no one responded to my message, on or off the list. I found this disheartening, since I considered it an issue that would be pertinent to the group."
Yes, one might think trying to address a shortage of library jobs might be pertinent, if one didn't know that SRRT has no interest in librarianship. I've been told that in its early days SRRT folks were indeed concerned about jobs for librarians. But as we all know, in the great scheme of things librarians are a relatively advantaged lot. They are obviously well educated, since they all have that rigorous MLS, and many of them make decent semi-middle class salaries. Librarians are the "Man," and it's no fun trying to help the "Man."
"I would feel more comfortable with the SRRT," Mr. Grooten says, "if they engaged in social activism as it relates directly to libraries and library workers. This is why I joined the American Library Association and many of the various divisions and interest groups. Many of the causes advanced by SRRT members have organizations or activist groups specifically targeted towards advocating those issues. I would seek these out first when and if I wanted to engage in this kind of activism."
Since that is almost exactly what I've been saying for the past year, I heartily approve. I also wonder if Cranky Marxist Dude, Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude, Nasty Bronc, and the Humorless Unionator will start attacking Grooten. SFTD can blog how stupid he is to think there's such a thing as a non-library issue and NB can post vile comments about him. The HU can point out how selfish he is, and also encourage him to join a union if he ever gets a job. CMD can write nasty things about him to the ALA Council listserv. Folks like that enjoy eating their own. Remember what happened to the Mensheviks!
I suspect, though, that the typical regressive irrational hypocrisy will prevail, and they'll focus on personalities, not issues. Since none of the regressive librarians has come up with any better refutation of Grooten's argument except SFTD's claim that if enough people believe something it must be true, they certainly can't address the issue. Since Grooten is obviously a SRRT member in good standing, they'll probably forgive him, and save their energy for attacking other people for saying exactly the same thing. Is it any wonder that I don't have any respect for these people?
Apparently those Radical Reference folks feel enervated as well, because ALA Annual in DC is only a couple of weeks away, and they haven't organized any radically referential protests. Of course this time last year I got excited over the prospect of the radical referrers protesting. "Stay tuned for info on possibly protests of Madeleine Albright and Laura Bush," they said. I stayed tuned, but nothing happened! And this year they don't even have a link for Annual 2007. We're going to Washington DC, and they're not even going to protest anything? I find this sad. Perhaps the radical referrers are all in Germany preparing to protest the G-8 meeting, handing out flyers with information on how to block roads and break windows and such. After all, protesters always need something to protest about, otherwise they don't get their emotional thrills. I assume most of them protest for the emotional thrill, because it's certainly not like they change anything.
I thought I'd read somewhere that the Regressive Librarians were going to back an ALA Council resolution to defund the Iraq War, but I couldn't find the reference again, not that I looked very hard. That will certainly be exciting, and if the resolution succeeds we can all relax in the knowledge that the boys will be coming home again soon, because after all, when the ALA speaks, people listen. After successfully blocking the confirmation of Justice Alito and directly causing the impeachment of President Bush and ending the genocide in Darfur, the ALA Council's record of affecting non-library issues is proven.
But maybe saner heads will prevail. Speaking of, I was surprised to see a sane head in the latest SRRT Newsletter (page 11). A socially concerned member of SRRT, Todd Grooten, wrote an opinion piece protesting SRRT's overwhelming concern with non-library issues and their lack of concern with the problems of actual librarians, including the problem of librarian unemployment. Here's an excerpt:
"I have dealt with chronic unemployment since graduating with my MLS in May 2003. I know I am not the only new(ish) librarian suffering from this problem. It has been discussed in many of the discussion lists geared towards people new to the profession (Nexgenlib, Newlib). When I posted a message about this topic to the SRRT discussion list last year, no one responded to my message, on or off the list. I found this disheartening, since I considered it an issue that would be pertinent to the group."
Yes, one might think trying to address a shortage of library jobs might be pertinent, if one didn't know that SRRT has no interest in librarianship. I've been told that in its early days SRRT folks were indeed concerned about jobs for librarians. But as we all know, in the great scheme of things librarians are a relatively advantaged lot. They are obviously well educated, since they all have that rigorous MLS, and many of them make decent semi-middle class salaries. Librarians are the "Man," and it's no fun trying to help the "Man."
"I would feel more comfortable with the SRRT," Mr. Grooten says, "if they engaged in social activism as it relates directly to libraries and library workers. This is why I joined the American Library Association and many of the various divisions and interest groups. Many of the causes advanced by SRRT members have organizations or activist groups specifically targeted towards advocating those issues. I would seek these out first when and if I wanted to engage in this kind of activism."
Since that is almost exactly what I've been saying for the past year, I heartily approve. I also wonder if Cranky Marxist Dude, Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude, Nasty Bronc, and the Humorless Unionator will start attacking Grooten. SFTD can blog how stupid he is to think there's such a thing as a non-library issue and NB can post vile comments about him. The HU can point out how selfish he is, and also encourage him to join a union if he ever gets a job. CMD can write nasty things about him to the ALA Council listserv. Folks like that enjoy eating their own. Remember what happened to the Mensheviks!
I suspect, though, that the typical regressive irrational hypocrisy will prevail, and they'll focus on personalities, not issues. Since none of the regressive librarians has come up with any better refutation of Grooten's argument except SFTD's claim that if enough people believe something it must be true, they certainly can't address the issue. Since Grooten is obviously a SRRT member in good standing, they'll probably forgive him, and save their energy for attacking other people for saying exactly the same thing. Is it any wonder that I don't have any respect for these people?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Reference and Research Protests
It can't happen often that a reference book draws more than yawns and mediocre reviews, but the OUP has stopped selling the Concise Dictionary of World Place Names because of some protests and outcries in India. (This was reported a few days ago, but I'm behind on my news.) According to the story:
"Among other errors, the book, the Concise Dictionary of World Place Names, says that the local language in Bangalore, Karnataka’s capital, is Bengali. Actually the language is Kannada. Bengali is spoken in Bangladesh and neighboring regions of northeastern India."
I'm certainly glad that's been cleared up, and I'm glad that the protesters in India have voiced their concern over such a trivial and unimportant factual error. Usually that concern is voiced by librarians. I of course spotted the error immediately, because I knew Kannada is the language spoken in Bangalore, just as Bangalorean is the language spoken in most of Canada, except in Quebec where they speak Urdu. I hope the next edition of the CDoWPN gets that fact right, at least.
We certainly wouldn't want anyone thinking that they speak Bengali in Bangalore. OUP probably thought it was safe because absolutely no one outside of Bangalore would possibly be interested in this trivial fact, and regardless of whether they speak Bengali or Kannada in Bangalore, the dictionary is in English. I guess some folks in Bangalore speak English as well. Frankly, I think they should have been happy that the book spelled "Karnataka" correctly. If it did spell "Karnataka" correctly, that is. After all, outside of Karnataka who really cares how it's spelled. I'm not even sure such a place exists. The CDpWPN claims it exists, but we know it makes errors about such important facts as what they speak in Karnataka. Maybe there's no such place.
Then that story linked to an older story that I don't think I'd heard about, but one librarians should be aware of. Librarians are famous, or notorious, or something, for wanting to help everyone. They're the people who come up to you in stores asking if you need help finding anything, even though they don't work there. Most librarians want people to come and use their collections, and they're happy to provide access and instruction. But after reading this story, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. The story recounts how some Hindu hooligans in India attacked a research center because it helped a scholar write a book they didn't like.
So keep that in mind the next time your library allows anyone to do any research. If the person writes something that makes hooligans or terrorists or whomever unhappy, they may visit their pathetic, self-righteous wrath on you and your library. I think the safest thing to do is restrict access to everything in the library all the time. Perhaps we should just close libraries down because they contain stuff that offends hooligans and terrorists and other thugs. The Regressive Librarians don't like free speech that offends terrorists and thugs; maybe they'll support shutting down libraries as well.
"Among other errors, the book, the Concise Dictionary of World Place Names, says that the local language in Bangalore, Karnataka’s capital, is Bengali. Actually the language is Kannada. Bengali is spoken in Bangladesh and neighboring regions of northeastern India."
I'm certainly glad that's been cleared up, and I'm glad that the protesters in India have voiced their concern over such a trivial and unimportant factual error. Usually that concern is voiced by librarians. I of course spotted the error immediately, because I knew Kannada is the language spoken in Bangalore, just as Bangalorean is the language spoken in most of Canada, except in Quebec where they speak Urdu. I hope the next edition of the CDoWPN gets that fact right, at least.
We certainly wouldn't want anyone thinking that they speak Bengali in Bangalore. OUP probably thought it was safe because absolutely no one outside of Bangalore would possibly be interested in this trivial fact, and regardless of whether they speak Bengali or Kannada in Bangalore, the dictionary is in English. I guess some folks in Bangalore speak English as well. Frankly, I think they should have been happy that the book spelled "Karnataka" correctly. If it did spell "Karnataka" correctly, that is. After all, outside of Karnataka who really cares how it's spelled. I'm not even sure such a place exists. The CDpWPN claims it exists, but we know it makes errors about such important facts as what they speak in Karnataka. Maybe there's no such place.
Then that story linked to an older story that I don't think I'd heard about, but one librarians should be aware of. Librarians are famous, or notorious, or something, for wanting to help everyone. They're the people who come up to you in stores asking if you need help finding anything, even though they don't work there. Most librarians want people to come and use their collections, and they're happy to provide access and instruction. But after reading this story, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. The story recounts how some Hindu hooligans in India attacked a research center because it helped a scholar write a book they didn't like.
So keep that in mind the next time your library allows anyone to do any research. If the person writes something that makes hooligans or terrorists or whomever unhappy, they may visit their pathetic, self-righteous wrath on you and your library. I think the safest thing to do is restrict access to everything in the library all the time. Perhaps we should just close libraries down because they contain stuff that offends hooligans and terrorists and other thugs. The Regressive Librarians don't like free speech that offends terrorists and thugs; maybe they'll support shutting down libraries as well.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Regressive Librarians Against Intellectual Freedom
File under "Intellectual Freedom Means the Freedom to Think Like Us!"
More foolishness from a Regressive Librarian: a "letter to IFLA Journal on Freedom of the Press, Social Responsibility and the Danish Cartoons." The subtext of this ridiculous letter seems to be that it's "socially responsible" to refrain from criticizing anyone who might kill you for criticizing him. It's certainly prudent if you don't want to be killed, but there's nothing socially responsible about gutting a liberal virtue like free speech to protect people who wouldn't do the same for you.
I consider it socially responsible to point out, for example, the oppression of women in Muslim countries and the betrayal of equal rights for women by people who kowtow to thuggish extremists who would gladly deny said equal rights. I also consider it socially responsible to point out that I don't think rape victims and homosexuals should be stoned and that I think Sharia law is barbaric. I might also point out that the idea of dying for your religion and going to heaven to be joined by forty virgins is sexist, misogynist, brutal, and just plain idiotic. But that's just me. Apparently the regressive librarians like this sort of thing.
So I guess the logic of the barbarians is, if I speak freely and you kill me, then you're not a murderer. I say something you don't like. You threaten me. That's somehow my fault. Sounds strangely like some of the logic of the Regressive Librarians Guild. I'm just glad they toss out resolutions instead of bombs. All the rhetoric about peace is pleasant as long as you're really gullible enough to believe that if America hadn't invaded Iraq then millions of Muslims around the world wouldn't riot and kill people for criticizing Islam. That's such an idiotic idea only a regressive librarian would believe it. I guess the regressive librarians don't get it. Peace is not what this particular enemy of liberalism wants. This enemy wants not peace, but submission. The War in Iraq is being used as a red herring to avoid the real issue of the Danish cartoons--intellectual freedom, free speech, and liberal democracy. I like them; the Muslim protesters don't. And apparently neither do the regressive librarians.
Apparently there were no conflicts between Muslims and the West until the US invaded Iraq. At least that's what I think the writer is implying, but then again I might be as confused as he is. I considered addressing the statements about "neutrality" since they seemed to be errantly aimed at people like me, but they're so ill-conceived and irrelevant to any issues I ever address I thought it unnecessary. I have a feeling, though, that this particular regressive librarian would confuse the idea of neutrality with the idea of library versus non-library issues. However, it's been pretty clear for a while that fine logical distinctions (or even rough ones for that matter) aren't the strong point of the regressive librarians. Nevertheless, it goes to show you that the SRRT folk only like free speech when they agree with it. What a surprise.
(If you don't like intellectual freedom or the freedom of speech and you love Muslim terrorists and you really want to get riled up, you can read my post from last fall on Islam and Intellectual Freedom. The ALA still hasn't come out against the chilling effect on intellectual freedom and free speech when people threaten to blow you up for speaking freely.)
I would find the Regressive Librarians contemptible if I didn't find them beneath contempt. I wonder when it will become clear to people that they are completely opposed to the liberal values that the ALA purports to defend. As I behold their nonsensical shenanigans, I wonder at the nerve they sometimes have of daring to call themselves "liberal," when it's quite clear they disdain liberalism and liberal values. Intellectual freedom? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion and freedom from religion? Gender equality? Equal rights? So many trifles to be discarded when the revolutionary utopia comes and everyone thinks like them. Or when we all become dhimmis. Either way, we won't have to listen to this regressive drivel anymore. For some reason, though, I don't want to trade my freedom and my rights for the illiberal bliss of regressive librarians or terrorists. Perhaps I just need some regressive "reeducation."
More foolishness from a Regressive Librarian: a "letter to IFLA Journal on Freedom of the Press, Social Responsibility and the Danish Cartoons." The subtext of this ridiculous letter seems to be that it's "socially responsible" to refrain from criticizing anyone who might kill you for criticizing him. It's certainly prudent if you don't want to be killed, but there's nothing socially responsible about gutting a liberal virtue like free speech to protect people who wouldn't do the same for you.
I consider it socially responsible to point out, for example, the oppression of women in Muslim countries and the betrayal of equal rights for women by people who kowtow to thuggish extremists who would gladly deny said equal rights. I also consider it socially responsible to point out that I don't think rape victims and homosexuals should be stoned and that I think Sharia law is barbaric. I might also point out that the idea of dying for your religion and going to heaven to be joined by forty virgins is sexist, misogynist, brutal, and just plain idiotic. But that's just me. Apparently the regressive librarians like this sort of thing.
So I guess the logic of the barbarians is, if I speak freely and you kill me, then you're not a murderer. I say something you don't like. You threaten me. That's somehow my fault. Sounds strangely like some of the logic of the Regressive Librarians Guild. I'm just glad they toss out resolutions instead of bombs. All the rhetoric about peace is pleasant as long as you're really gullible enough to believe that if America hadn't invaded Iraq then millions of Muslims around the world wouldn't riot and kill people for criticizing Islam. That's such an idiotic idea only a regressive librarian would believe it. I guess the regressive librarians don't get it. Peace is not what this particular enemy of liberalism wants. This enemy wants not peace, but submission. The War in Iraq is being used as a red herring to avoid the real issue of the Danish cartoons--intellectual freedom, free speech, and liberal democracy. I like them; the Muslim protesters don't. And apparently neither do the regressive librarians.
Apparently there were no conflicts between Muslims and the West until the US invaded Iraq. At least that's what I think the writer is implying, but then again I might be as confused as he is. I considered addressing the statements about "neutrality" since they seemed to be errantly aimed at people like me, but they're so ill-conceived and irrelevant to any issues I ever address I thought it unnecessary. I have a feeling, though, that this particular regressive librarian would confuse the idea of neutrality with the idea of library versus non-library issues. However, it's been pretty clear for a while that fine logical distinctions (or even rough ones for that matter) aren't the strong point of the regressive librarians. Nevertheless, it goes to show you that the SRRT folk only like free speech when they agree with it. What a surprise.
(If you don't like intellectual freedom or the freedom of speech and you love Muslim terrorists and you really want to get riled up, you can read my post from last fall on Islam and Intellectual Freedom. The ALA still hasn't come out against the chilling effect on intellectual freedom and free speech when people threaten to blow you up for speaking freely.)
I would find the Regressive Librarians contemptible if I didn't find them beneath contempt. I wonder when it will become clear to people that they are completely opposed to the liberal values that the ALA purports to defend. As I behold their nonsensical shenanigans, I wonder at the nerve they sometimes have of daring to call themselves "liberal," when it's quite clear they disdain liberalism and liberal values. Intellectual freedom? Freedom of Speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion and freedom from religion? Gender equality? Equal rights? So many trifles to be discarded when the revolutionary utopia comes and everyone thinks like them. Or when we all become dhimmis. Either way, we won't have to listen to this regressive drivel anymore. For some reason, though, I don't want to trade my freedom and my rights for the illiberal bliss of regressive librarians or terrorists. Perhaps I just need some regressive "reeducation."
Friday, April 13, 2007
My ALA Resolution
It wouldn't be a week on the AL without a political post, so here goes.
I've been "persuaded" by the clever "reasoning" of the Regressive Librarian thugs. I say "persuaded," but obviously I caved in under duress. They threatened to call all the libraries in the country and say they had the Annoyed Librarian working on their staff and should just fire everyone in the library to make sure she was punished for daring to deviate from the Party Program of regressive harassment and intimidation. Heil, Regressive Librarians! Obviously, when the Regressive Librarians speak, people listen, and the thought of all those poor librarians fired from their jobs and out in the streets begging for videos to catalog or directing people to publicly available restrooms was just too depressing. So I capitulated.
I'm thus now in complete agreement with the "truthiness" logic of Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude. You might remember him as the guy who thinks that if enough people believe something, then it's true. Other people have weighed in on the argument saying they can't see the distinction between library and non-library issues that seems perfectly clear to me. With this democratic truthiness argument, the incapacity to make logical distinctions becomes a de facto argument that every issue is a library issue, if enough librarians believe it is. As we all know, democracy is a wonderful thing, and applied to the concept of truth it becomes completely fantastic.
I'm an academic, which means I still value things like logic, evidence, argument, reason, civility, debate, deliberation--crazy stuff like that. I didn't realize truth was just what enough people believed, but then I hadn't been through the totalitarian reeducation camp of the Regressive Librarians Guild and taught that truth is what they say it is. In the immortal words of Cole Porter--anything goes. The world has gone mad today. Good is bad today. Black is white today.... Sorry, I got carried away.
So I have a resolution for the ALA Council to pass, one of vital concern not just to me, but to civilized people everywhere. I realize this leaves out the political thugs in the Regressive Librarians Guild, but I don't mind leaving them out. I don't think they'd be very fun to share a drink with, anyway.
And speaking of drink, my proposed resolution is, of course, about the proper definition of a dry martini. What do we mean when we ask for a dry martini? I've been writing a lot about martinis over at the Relaxin' blog, but now that I've leaped headfirst onto, or perhaps under, the Regressive Librarians' subintellectual Cluetrain, I can write about issues of real importance and interest, instead of ALA politics.
The AL's ALA Resolution:
WHEREAS, the dry martini is civilization in a glass; and...
WHEREAS, the dry martini is the most significant American contribution to world culture; and...
WHEREAS, the dry martini is for those with established values and a liking for purity, even in their vices; and...
WHEREAS, one is alright, two is too many, and three is not enough; and...
WHEREAS, anything enough librarians believe must be true;
RESOLVED, a dry martini is made with gin and vermouth at any ratio between four and eight to one, shaken or stirred with ice, and strained into a chilled cocktail glass with either a lemon twist or an olive for garnish. In a spirit of ecumenism, vodka may be substituted for gin and the garnish is optional.
There. I hope the ALA Council takes this up at Annual. Remember, if enough librarians decide this is a library issue, then it is, so start lobbying the ALA Council today!
So have a good weekend, and I'll toast you all with my first martini tonight.
I've been "persuaded" by the clever "reasoning" of the Regressive Librarian thugs. I say "persuaded," but obviously I caved in under duress. They threatened to call all the libraries in the country and say they had the Annoyed Librarian working on their staff and should just fire everyone in the library to make sure she was punished for daring to deviate from the Party Program of regressive harassment and intimidation. Heil, Regressive Librarians! Obviously, when the Regressive Librarians speak, people listen, and the thought of all those poor librarians fired from their jobs and out in the streets begging for videos to catalog or directing people to publicly available restrooms was just too depressing. So I capitulated.
I'm thus now in complete agreement with the "truthiness" logic of Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude. You might remember him as the guy who thinks that if enough people believe something, then it's true. Other people have weighed in on the argument saying they can't see the distinction between library and non-library issues that seems perfectly clear to me. With this democratic truthiness argument, the incapacity to make logical distinctions becomes a de facto argument that every issue is a library issue, if enough librarians believe it is. As we all know, democracy is a wonderful thing, and applied to the concept of truth it becomes completely fantastic.
I'm an academic, which means I still value things like logic, evidence, argument, reason, civility, debate, deliberation--crazy stuff like that. I didn't realize truth was just what enough people believed, but then I hadn't been through the totalitarian reeducation camp of the Regressive Librarians Guild and taught that truth is what they say it is. In the immortal words of Cole Porter--anything goes. The world has gone mad today. Good is bad today. Black is white today.... Sorry, I got carried away.
So I have a resolution for the ALA Council to pass, one of vital concern not just to me, but to civilized people everywhere. I realize this leaves out the political thugs in the Regressive Librarians Guild, but I don't mind leaving them out. I don't think they'd be very fun to share a drink with, anyway.
And speaking of drink, my proposed resolution is, of course, about the proper definition of a dry martini. What do we mean when we ask for a dry martini? I've been writing a lot about martinis over at the Relaxin' blog, but now that I've leaped headfirst onto, or perhaps under, the Regressive Librarians' subintellectual Cluetrain, I can write about issues of real importance and interest, instead of ALA politics.
The AL's ALA Resolution:
WHEREAS, the dry martini is civilization in a glass; and...
WHEREAS, the dry martini is the most significant American contribution to world culture; and...
WHEREAS, the dry martini is for those with established values and a liking for purity, even in their vices; and...
WHEREAS, one is alright, two is too many, and three is not enough; and...
WHEREAS, anything enough librarians believe must be true;
RESOLVED, a dry martini is made with gin and vermouth at any ratio between four and eight to one, shaken or stirred with ice, and strained into a chilled cocktail glass with either a lemon twist or an olive for garnish. In a spirit of ecumenism, vodka may be substituted for gin and the garnish is optional.
There. I hope the ALA Council takes this up at Annual. Remember, if enough librarians decide this is a library issue, then it is, so start lobbying the ALA Council today!
So have a good weekend, and I'll toast you all with my first martini tonight.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
RLG Resolution: Against Criticism
Like any collection of thuggish, self-righteous blowhards, the Regressive Librarians Guild of the Annoyed Librarian Association doesn't like criticism, especially anonymous criticism, of our many unjustifiable and ridiculous actions. We are so obviously morally and intellectually superior to the mere tainted mortals who surround us in the profession of librarianship that any criticism must by definition be driven by evil and stupid motives. But unlike other cowards, when something bothers us, we take action! That's right--we've passed another resolution!
So here's our latest resolution against criticism and ideas and arguments and people expecting us to behave like rational and decent human beings.
WHEREAS, intellectual freedom means the freedom to think like us; and...
WHEREAS, the freedom of speech applies only to us and people who "think" like us; and...
WHEREAS, anonymous critics present us only with words and ideas; and...
WHEREAS, this is bad 'cuz we don't read or think too good; and...
WHEREAS, words and ideas are just tools of bourgeois oppression; and...
WHEREAS, we're not good with logical distinctions (e.g., library/non-library); and...
WHEREAS, we just feel very deeply about a lot of stuff; and...
WHEREAS, people who don't agree with us are just evil, by definition; and...
WHEREAS, anonymous critics don't give us any personalities to smear, or any careers to threaten, or stuff like that; and...
WHEREAS, that's bad because we don't have any good arguments and have to resort to threats and intimidation;
RESOLVED, that the Regressive Librarians Guild opposes all criticism; and be it further
RESOLVED, that any critics should dispense with ideas, arguments, reason, civility, or good judgment because those are foreign to our nature and our cause; and be it further
RESOLVED, that because our thought police are good at sending nasty emails but have the intellectual capacity of dryer lint, critics need to make things easier for us and should just shut up and give us your name, your address, the name of your employer, your social security number, your credit card numbers, and the name of your senior prom date, so we can take appropriate action to have you silenced, intimidated, and harassed until you just shut up and leave us alone to pester and harass people in peace.
The RLG has spoken! All hail the RLG! Regressive librarians of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains!
So here's our latest resolution against criticism and ideas and arguments and people expecting us to behave like rational and decent human beings.
WHEREAS, intellectual freedom means the freedom to think like us; and...
WHEREAS, the freedom of speech applies only to us and people who "think" like us; and...
WHEREAS, anonymous critics present us only with words and ideas; and...
WHEREAS, this is bad 'cuz we don't read or think too good; and...
WHEREAS, words and ideas are just tools of bourgeois oppression; and...
WHEREAS, we're not good with logical distinctions (e.g., library/non-library); and...
WHEREAS, we just feel very deeply about a lot of stuff; and...
WHEREAS, people who don't agree with us are just evil, by definition; and...
WHEREAS, anonymous critics don't give us any personalities to smear, or any careers to threaten, or stuff like that; and...
WHEREAS, that's bad because we don't have any good arguments and have to resort to threats and intimidation;
RESOLVED, that the Regressive Librarians Guild opposes all criticism; and be it further
RESOLVED, that any critics should dispense with ideas, arguments, reason, civility, or good judgment because those are foreign to our nature and our cause; and be it further
RESOLVED, that because our thought police are good at sending nasty emails but have the intellectual capacity of dryer lint, critics need to make things easier for us and should just shut up and give us your name, your address, the name of your employer, your social security number, your credit card numbers, and the name of your senior prom date, so we can take appropriate action to have you silenced, intimidated, and harassed until you just shut up and leave us alone to pester and harass people in peace.
The RLG has spoken! All hail the RLG! Regressive librarians of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Politics and the AL
I don't usually do this, but I'm bringing a comment on the last post up to the main page and responding to it, because I think it's an interesting comment that nevertheless mischaracterizes what I'm doing.
Here's an excerpt: "It seems strange that conservatives feel they "should" have more representation, ideologically, than they do now.
Yeah, probably, but you don't.
And that sucks for you. Really, I'm not being an ass. I'd be mad if my professional organization was 180 degrees off my own views."
I'm not accusing the person of being an ass. The full comment is considerate and thoughtful. I just think it's mistaken, at least regarding me. But for anyone who thinks this statement has any relevance to the AL, I can only say, you just don't understand.
I'm not sure from the comment if the commenter is indeed referring to my blog specifically, or some "movement" or what, so I just want to address it as it may or may not apply to the AL.
Let's be clear on something. I've never argued that conservatives should have more representation in ALA. And I've never argued that SRRT political stances are "180 degrees off my own views." What I have consistently argued is that the ALA has no business taking stands on issues unrelated to libraries, whatever the substance of the stand might be.
I don't care tuppence if there are more conservative librarians in ALA. I also don't care tuppence if there are more anarchists, libertarians, or communitarians in ALA. If there was a conservative group to rival the SRRT and they started proposing resolutions about President Bush or the Iraq War, I would be attacking them as mercilessly as I now do the SRRT. My only claim on ALA politics is that the ALA should address library issues where it speaks with authority and expertise, instead of letting itself be hijacked by a group of political ideologues and blowhards into taking public positions on issues that have nothing to do with librarianship.
Careful readers will have noticed that I don't mention my particular political views. Except for the handful of readers who both know me personally and also know I write this blog (and that's a small group indeed!), I doubt any of you could say anything substantial about my political opinions, nor could you say what I think about George Bush, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, human rights, terrorism, Hillary Clinton, national health care, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, global warming, or the legalization of marijuana. As some of my frustrated readers have noted, it's just not in the blog, folks. About the only political opinion of any substance I've stated is that I think Marxists are ridiculous. That's hardly a position confined to conservatives. I've only made the observation because it seems irrefutable based on the facts.
Though you might not believe it, I do in fact have carefully considered, historically informed, theoretically nuanced political positions about a wide variety of issues. And I'm not sharing them with you. Sorry, but this is Annoyed Librarian, not Annoyed Citizen. Outside of the context of librarianship, I don't talk about my politics, period, which is why I find it so bizarre when people try to criticize whatever they suppose my political position is rather than addressing my arguments. Some of my opponents absolutely insist on substituting political labels for political thought, and it's no wonder they froth at the mouth and rant and rave. They are incapable of reasoning about politics. They're only capable of political insult. That might work fine on an ideological blog or talk radio program, but I'm having none of it. Whether I'm a liberal or a conservative or an anarcho-syndicalist is irrelevant.
There's nothing particularly "conservative" about my position on the issue of the ALA taking stands on non-library issues. It's only political ideologies that conflate the personal and the political and that politicize all areas of life--that is, totalitarian positions of the right and the left--that I ever specifically criticize. For all you know, I'm an anti-war, anti-Bush, welfare state liberal.
I don't criticize the propriety of the ALA in addressing areas of political concern such as the Patriot Act or CIPA or DOPA, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the ALA stance on the issue. I have never argued that the ALA should not address larger issues of intellectual freedom. And I have never criticized the personal politics of any librarian who hasn't tried to use the ALA as a mouthpiece for their personal political ideology. To librarians as librarians, liberal or conservative doesn't matter. Unless I'm engaged in these asinine debates with the SRRT, none of these issues ever comes up in my work either in my library or within ALA.
There are a lot of important issues that the ALA should be addressing, from librarian compensation to the issue of library education to intellectual freedom. Having the ALA Council make statements about how we librarians don't like genocide in Darfur, for example, does absolutely nothing to help librarians or the profession of librarianship, but does a lot to make a mockery of serious and tragic issues. Is there some idiot out there that thinks if the ALA passes one of these resolutions, that anyone at all is helped? Or is the purpose just make sure we all feel good and we're all on the side of the angels? "We're such good people! Unlike all those other people who think genocide is just dandy!"
Is there anyone reading this who really thinks I like genocide, or war, or terror, or torture, or oppression, or exploitation, or racism? One difference between me and a lot of anti-conservatives is that I don't think conservatives like these things, either. I'm doing what I can to persuade people that the ALA shouldn't take positions on non-library issues. If you agree with me about this issue, it won't be because you admire my personal politics, whatever those might be. It will be because you think I'm right.
Here's an excerpt: "It seems strange that conservatives feel they "should" have more representation, ideologically, than they do now.
Yeah, probably, but you don't.
And that sucks for you. Really, I'm not being an ass. I'd be mad if my professional organization was 180 degrees off my own views."
I'm not accusing the person of being an ass. The full comment is considerate and thoughtful. I just think it's mistaken, at least regarding me. But for anyone who thinks this statement has any relevance to the AL, I can only say, you just don't understand.
I'm not sure from the comment if the commenter is indeed referring to my blog specifically, or some "movement" or what, so I just want to address it as it may or may not apply to the AL.
Let's be clear on something. I've never argued that conservatives should have more representation in ALA. And I've never argued that SRRT political stances are "180 degrees off my own views." What I have consistently argued is that the ALA has no business taking stands on issues unrelated to libraries, whatever the substance of the stand might be.
I don't care tuppence if there are more conservative librarians in ALA. I also don't care tuppence if there are more anarchists, libertarians, or communitarians in ALA. If there was a conservative group to rival the SRRT and they started proposing resolutions about President Bush or the Iraq War, I would be attacking them as mercilessly as I now do the SRRT. My only claim on ALA politics is that the ALA should address library issues where it speaks with authority and expertise, instead of letting itself be hijacked by a group of political ideologues and blowhards into taking public positions on issues that have nothing to do with librarianship.
Careful readers will have noticed that I don't mention my particular political views. Except for the handful of readers who both know me personally and also know I write this blog (and that's a small group indeed!), I doubt any of you could say anything substantial about my political opinions, nor could you say what I think about George Bush, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, human rights, terrorism, Hillary Clinton, national health care, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, global warming, or the legalization of marijuana. As some of my frustrated readers have noted, it's just not in the blog, folks. About the only political opinion of any substance I've stated is that I think Marxists are ridiculous. That's hardly a position confined to conservatives. I've only made the observation because it seems irrefutable based on the facts.
Though you might not believe it, I do in fact have carefully considered, historically informed, theoretically nuanced political positions about a wide variety of issues. And I'm not sharing them with you. Sorry, but this is Annoyed Librarian, not Annoyed Citizen. Outside of the context of librarianship, I don't talk about my politics, period, which is why I find it so bizarre when people try to criticize whatever they suppose my political position is rather than addressing my arguments. Some of my opponents absolutely insist on substituting political labels for political thought, and it's no wonder they froth at the mouth and rant and rave. They are incapable of reasoning about politics. They're only capable of political insult. That might work fine on an ideological blog or talk radio program, but I'm having none of it. Whether I'm a liberal or a conservative or an anarcho-syndicalist is irrelevant.
There's nothing particularly "conservative" about my position on the issue of the ALA taking stands on non-library issues. It's only political ideologies that conflate the personal and the political and that politicize all areas of life--that is, totalitarian positions of the right and the left--that I ever specifically criticize. For all you know, I'm an anti-war, anti-Bush, welfare state liberal.
I don't criticize the propriety of the ALA in addressing areas of political concern such as the Patriot Act or CIPA or DOPA, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the ALA stance on the issue. I have never argued that the ALA should not address larger issues of intellectual freedom. And I have never criticized the personal politics of any librarian who hasn't tried to use the ALA as a mouthpiece for their personal political ideology. To librarians as librarians, liberal or conservative doesn't matter. Unless I'm engaged in these asinine debates with the SRRT, none of these issues ever comes up in my work either in my library or within ALA.
There are a lot of important issues that the ALA should be addressing, from librarian compensation to the issue of library education to intellectual freedom. Having the ALA Council make statements about how we librarians don't like genocide in Darfur, for example, does absolutely nothing to help librarians or the profession of librarianship, but does a lot to make a mockery of serious and tragic issues. Is there some idiot out there that thinks if the ALA passes one of these resolutions, that anyone at all is helped? Or is the purpose just make sure we all feel good and we're all on the side of the angels? "We're such good people! Unlike all those other people who think genocide is just dandy!"
Is there anyone reading this who really thinks I like genocide, or war, or terror, or torture, or oppression, or exploitation, or racism? One difference between me and a lot of anti-conservatives is that I don't think conservatives like these things, either. I'm doing what I can to persuade people that the ALA shouldn't take positions on non-library issues. If you agree with me about this issue, it won't be because you admire my personal politics, whatever those might be. It will be because you think I'm right.
Friday, March 23, 2007
More Foolishness
The AL seems to have two different kinds of critics. There are those who respond thoughtfully and considerately to what I say and often leave intelligent and insightful comments that occasionally make me rethink my positions. And then there are those who seem to read about every fifth word of what I say, try to cobble together some meaning from that, and then just mouth off in an insulting and half-baked way rather than provide any argument at all.
Speaking of Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude, he's been blogging away again. Apparently the AL is getting to him, because he's gone on the attack once more. You might remember how he initiated his sad little blog with a gratuitous insult to yours truly and revealed how emotional he is and how he "sputters in anger" when he reads stuff he disagrees with. The easy solution for him would just be to continue reading only things he agrees with. Then he could remain in the comfy little totalitarian echo chamber with Cranky Marxist Dude and their comrades.
I've never looked at the comments on his blog, but he claimed he got lots of "garbage" in reference to the "discussion" where he so ungraciously insulted me. Well, you know what they say: garbage in, garbage out. He failed to note that his "discussion" was just scurrilous ad hominem attacks and that he if wanted some intelligent and courteous debate he should provide some. In a response to some comments, he's noted he doesn't "respond to comments," and how he supposedly doesn't "answer those who hide behind anonymous postings because [he has] no respect for those who are afraid to openly stand behind their views." You know, people like "Publius" writing the Federalist Papers. And this after Humorless Unionator claimed anonymous blogs were "paper tigers." What is it about these people? They're so personality driven, aren't they. If they don't have anyone personally to attack and smear, they're just not happy.
And yet, he's at it again. This time, either through a pathetic attempt at humor or perhaps just an inherent sloppiness, he calls me the "Annoying Librarian." You're so clever, Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude! That's shows the same amount of wit as the "right wing nut" crack. You just keep at it, and maybe one day you'll accidentally stumble upon a genuinely clever insult. Until then, keep swinging! It would be nicer, or course, if you could save the insults for whoever it is that encouraged you to start blogging, and try to engage in a little intellectual debate occasionally.
He doesn't like it that I criticize totalitarians who conflate the personal and the political. He claims I just accuse "those on the left," but it's not true. I gladly point out the similarity of totalitarians everywhere. He could be a fascist and I'd still criticize him. I just don't like totalitarians. Call me crazy. Call me, as he implies I am, "un-American." (He seems to have a touch of McCarthy about him.)
This time, mixed in with his irrelevant name-calling, is at least some semblance of an argument, so I suppose just for old time's sake I'll try to analyze his claims. "I look at it this way," he says. "ALA is not a library. ALA is a membership organization, and if those members or their representatives on the ALA Council decide that war, in Iraq or Vietnam, is an issue about which they wish to take a stand, and that it is related to librarianship, that is legitimate." Well, he has me there. The ALA is not a library. Very astute observation. Funny thing is, I never said it was. Yes, it's a member organization--for librarians to address issues common to librarians. I especially like the pseudo-democratic argument that if "those members or their representatives" decide that something is a library issue, then it is! The great thing about such a fuzzy claim is that one doesn't have to think or analyze or argue. Voting makes it so. Perhaps this is one of those "wikiality" arguments. If enough people believe it, it must be true! Yay! Democracy! Certainly saves the trouble of thinking, and I know some people find that comforting.
But then we get an even bigger claim: "Indeed, war is a library issue, as is any other issue that raises questions about how we will allocate public resources." Wow! So everything that has to do with the allocation of public resources is a library issue? Thus, a librarian by definition can speak authoritatively about almost every political issue. That's really great, because it eliminates the elitist standard that people should actually know what they're talking about. Who knew librarians were so knowledgeable about every last aspect of the "allocation of public resources"?
As I've said, when librarians speak on library issues, they speak with authority and expertise. When they speak about other issues, they're just blowhards. This bizarre claim that any issue to do with public funding is automatically a library issue becomes the justification for being a blowhard. I'll just call this the Blowhard Fallacy, and attribute it to Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude. And of course there's the obvious truth that the ALA can say whatever it likes, but no one takes it seriously when it doesn't address library issues. It's not even clear anyone takes it seriously when it does address library issues. But the ALA passing resolutions on wars and presidents is definitely just "spouting some opinions."
And he just goes on and on: "I just can’t understand why right wingers like Heretical and Annoyed, who constantly spout their views either anonymously or not, but always as librarians, find it wrong for ALA members to vote to do the same." (Notice the loaded language. The AL never provides argument or analysis. I just "spout my views." Takes one to know one, I guess.) If he can't understand this, then the problem is probably him.
Where have I ever said that librarians shouldn't "spout their views"? And where have I ever written about a political issue that wasn't obviously of concern to libraries and librarianship and the ALA? Where have I ever "spouted my opinions" about President Bush, the War in Iraq, or any other issue that isn't immediately connected with libraries? Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude is apparently a very sloppy reader. I write about library issues and I don't write about my politics. Such cannot of course be said of Heretical or Conservator or SHUSH, but they have their blogs and I have mine. Thus, the lack of understanding is based on a faulty assumption--the assumption that I am denying to "ALA members" a privilege I exercise myself. I practice what I preach. If I practiced what Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude preached, I'd try to get the ALA to pass a resolution on the proper way to make a dry martini. Resolved: a dry martini is shaken or stirred with a gin:vermouth ration of between 4 and 8 to 1 and with an olive or twist. I still wouldn't vote for it.
Most importantly, there's the false analogy between my personal blog, which represents the opinions of me and for which I am entirely responsible (as Heretical et al. are personal blogs), and a professional organization that represents thousands of librarians and the entire profession of librarianship in America. Are those really the same thing? Does one have to be some sort of genius to see the difference? Personal blog/ professional organization. Keep repeating until they become clear. The AL is a personal blog. The ALA is a professional organization. Seems pretty clear to me.
The additional problem is that it isn't "ALA members" in toto that are doing anything, but a select group that wants to hijack the ALA Council and make it speak for them, when most ALA members seem to disagree not with the particular stances but with the very fact that the ALA Council is taking any stance at all. Let's put, for example, a resolution up before the entire membership, perhaps with one of those AL Direct polls, that asks whether the ALA should be taking positions on issues like the Iraq War or whether the ALA should address library issues exclusively. Then let's see how the ALA members vote.
And the hits just keep on coming. "Librarians, as librarians, do have social responsibilities, and they are duty bound to express their views about them, either as individual librarians or as members of library associations." Keep telling yourself that, Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude. If you ever provide a reasonable argument for the claim, let me know. We're duty bound, you see, to press our personal politics on others in an organization devoted to librarianship. We're duty bound to make nuisances of ourselves until other people just break down and pass silly resolutions because they're too tired to fight off the political ideologues who have no higher standard than political victory. We're duty bound to be rogues and pests and thugs. Duty bound!
And then he turns all patriotic on us. "That is how we’ve always done it in this country.... That is the American way, after all." Isn't that quaint. I expect to see him showing up soon on Youtube with an American flag behind him talking about the American Way and mother and apple pie and whatnot. Some people, and I'm betting Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude knows such people, claim the American way it exploitation, imperialism, racism, sexism, fascism and just generally bad manners. That's the stuff about the American way I would expect from the SRRT types. But when such a meaningless generality as the "American Way" can be used to support totalitarian positions that eliminate privacy and conflate the personal and the political, then out come the flags!
It's also the American way to fight totalitarianism wherever we find it. Pretty soon I might have to start waving my own flag.
Speaking of Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude, he's been blogging away again. Apparently the AL is getting to him, because he's gone on the attack once more. You might remember how he initiated his sad little blog with a gratuitous insult to yours truly and revealed how emotional he is and how he "sputters in anger" when he reads stuff he disagrees with. The easy solution for him would just be to continue reading only things he agrees with. Then he could remain in the comfy little totalitarian echo chamber with Cranky Marxist Dude and their comrades.
I've never looked at the comments on his blog, but he claimed he got lots of "garbage" in reference to the "discussion" where he so ungraciously insulted me. Well, you know what they say: garbage in, garbage out. He failed to note that his "discussion" was just scurrilous ad hominem attacks and that he if wanted some intelligent and courteous debate he should provide some. In a response to some comments, he's noted he doesn't "respond to comments," and how he supposedly doesn't "answer those who hide behind anonymous postings because [he has] no respect for those who are afraid to openly stand behind their views." You know, people like "Publius" writing the Federalist Papers. And this after Humorless Unionator claimed anonymous blogs were "paper tigers." What is it about these people? They're so personality driven, aren't they. If they don't have anyone personally to attack and smear, they're just not happy.
And yet, he's at it again. This time, either through a pathetic attempt at humor or perhaps just an inherent sloppiness, he calls me the "Annoying Librarian." You're so clever, Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude! That's shows the same amount of wit as the "right wing nut" crack. You just keep at it, and maybe one day you'll accidentally stumble upon a genuinely clever insult. Until then, keep swinging! It would be nicer, or course, if you could save the insults for whoever it is that encouraged you to start blogging, and try to engage in a little intellectual debate occasionally.
He doesn't like it that I criticize totalitarians who conflate the personal and the political. He claims I just accuse "those on the left," but it's not true. I gladly point out the similarity of totalitarians everywhere. He could be a fascist and I'd still criticize him. I just don't like totalitarians. Call me crazy. Call me, as he implies I am, "un-American." (He seems to have a touch of McCarthy about him.)
This time, mixed in with his irrelevant name-calling, is at least some semblance of an argument, so I suppose just for old time's sake I'll try to analyze his claims. "I look at it this way," he says. "ALA is not a library. ALA is a membership organization, and if those members or their representatives on the ALA Council decide that war, in Iraq or Vietnam, is an issue about which they wish to take a stand, and that it is related to librarianship, that is legitimate." Well, he has me there. The ALA is not a library. Very astute observation. Funny thing is, I never said it was. Yes, it's a member organization--for librarians to address issues common to librarians. I especially like the pseudo-democratic argument that if "those members or their representatives" decide that something is a library issue, then it is! The great thing about such a fuzzy claim is that one doesn't have to think or analyze or argue. Voting makes it so. Perhaps this is one of those "wikiality" arguments. If enough people believe it, it must be true! Yay! Democracy! Certainly saves the trouble of thinking, and I know some people find that comforting.
But then we get an even bigger claim: "Indeed, war is a library issue, as is any other issue that raises questions about how we will allocate public resources." Wow! So everything that has to do with the allocation of public resources is a library issue? Thus, a librarian by definition can speak authoritatively about almost every political issue. That's really great, because it eliminates the elitist standard that people should actually know what they're talking about. Who knew librarians were so knowledgeable about every last aspect of the "allocation of public resources"?
As I've said, when librarians speak on library issues, they speak with authority and expertise. When they speak about other issues, they're just blowhards. This bizarre claim that any issue to do with public funding is automatically a library issue becomes the justification for being a blowhard. I'll just call this the Blowhard Fallacy, and attribute it to Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude. And of course there's the obvious truth that the ALA can say whatever it likes, but no one takes it seriously when it doesn't address library issues. It's not even clear anyone takes it seriously when it does address library issues. But the ALA passing resolutions on wars and presidents is definitely just "spouting some opinions."
And he just goes on and on: "I just can’t understand why right wingers like Heretical and Annoyed, who constantly spout their views either anonymously or not, but always as librarians, find it wrong for ALA members to vote to do the same." (Notice the loaded language. The AL never provides argument or analysis. I just "spout my views." Takes one to know one, I guess.) If he can't understand this, then the problem is probably him.
Where have I ever said that librarians shouldn't "spout their views"? And where have I ever written about a political issue that wasn't obviously of concern to libraries and librarianship and the ALA? Where have I ever "spouted my opinions" about President Bush, the War in Iraq, or any other issue that isn't immediately connected with libraries? Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude is apparently a very sloppy reader. I write about library issues and I don't write about my politics. Such cannot of course be said of Heretical or Conservator or SHUSH, but they have their blogs and I have mine. Thus, the lack of understanding is based on a faulty assumption--the assumption that I am denying to "ALA members" a privilege I exercise myself. I practice what I preach. If I practiced what Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude preached, I'd try to get the ALA to pass a resolution on the proper way to make a dry martini. Resolved: a dry martini is shaken or stirred with a gin:vermouth ration of between 4 and 8 to 1 and with an olive or twist. I still wouldn't vote for it.
Most importantly, there's the false analogy between my personal blog, which represents the opinions of me and for which I am entirely responsible (as Heretical et al. are personal blogs), and a professional organization that represents thousands of librarians and the entire profession of librarianship in America. Are those really the same thing? Does one have to be some sort of genius to see the difference? Personal blog/ professional organization. Keep repeating until they become clear. The AL is a personal blog. The ALA is a professional organization. Seems pretty clear to me.
The additional problem is that it isn't "ALA members" in toto that are doing anything, but a select group that wants to hijack the ALA Council and make it speak for them, when most ALA members seem to disagree not with the particular stances but with the very fact that the ALA Council is taking any stance at all. Let's put, for example, a resolution up before the entire membership, perhaps with one of those AL Direct polls, that asks whether the ALA should be taking positions on issues like the Iraq War or whether the ALA should address library issues exclusively. Then let's see how the ALA members vote.
And the hits just keep on coming. "Librarians, as librarians, do have social responsibilities, and they are duty bound to express their views about them, either as individual librarians or as members of library associations." Keep telling yourself that, Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude. If you ever provide a reasonable argument for the claim, let me know. We're duty bound, you see, to press our personal politics on others in an organization devoted to librarianship. We're duty bound to make nuisances of ourselves until other people just break down and pass silly resolutions because they're too tired to fight off the political ideologues who have no higher standard than political victory. We're duty bound to be rogues and pests and thugs. Duty bound!
And then he turns all patriotic on us. "That is how we’ve always done it in this country.... That is the American way, after all." Isn't that quaint. I expect to see him showing up soon on Youtube with an American flag behind him talking about the American Way and mother and apple pie and whatnot. Some people, and I'm betting Snipey Fellow-Traveling Dude knows such people, claim the American way it exploitation, imperialism, racism, sexism, fascism and just generally bad manners. That's the stuff about the American way I would expect from the SRRT types. But when such a meaningless generality as the "American Way" can be used to support totalitarian positions that eliminate privacy and conflate the personal and the political, then out come the flags!
It's also the American way to fight totalitarianism wherever we find it. Pretty soon I might have to start waving my own flag.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Privacy Versus the SRRT
I was reminded of the value of privacy so many librarians claim to espouse while reading a post at Library Juice last week that had Rory Litwin engaging in a little revisionist history. From the LJ post: "The Council sessions of the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Seattle in January were interpreted by many as a defeat of the idea that Council should address 'non library issues,' [note the scare quotes] as resolutions aimed at defunding the war in Iraq and impeaching President Bush were voted down by wide margins."
It may be a secret to Litwin (since I have no idea if he reads the AL), but it's no secret to you that I am one of the "many" who interpreted the SRRT ass-kicking at Midwinter as a defeat of the idea that the ALA Council should address non-library issues. I don't know if that defeat will ever be permanent, but it was definitely a defeat of this idea, with at least one brave Councilor publicly questioning the relevance of these issues. Perhaps the idea will resurrect its slimy head, but it was still no less a defeat.
Litwin goes on to say claim that "in fact, Council’s interest in issues like this tends to move in waves, and the primary reason these resolutions did not gain ground this time may be that Council members are tired of this type of issue after a number of years of addressing them in Council floor debates that were lengthy, emotional and difficult."
Yes, the primary reason may be fatigue, and it may be that the Councilors are starting to make more refined moral and political judgments. Perhaps the more refined moral and political judgments are themselves the result of long, emotional, and difficult debates. Time will tell.
He confesses: "I share the same fatigue, and personally do not regret the present mood of Council - as long as it does not lead us away from dealing with those issues that are outside of the immediate technical concerns of librarians but within our wider domain (issues of intellectual freedom, information ethics and information policy), and as long as we don’t close the door on 'non-library issues' completely."
I can follow him a certain distance, but no further. I have never argued that the ALA should not address wider issues relevant to librarianship (such as intellectual freedom). I may disagree with some stances taken by the ALA, but often as not I don't. I think the ALA claims about so called "banned books" and public pornography are wrong and based on intellectual confusion and dubious moral reasoning, but nevertheless they are proper areas for ALA involvement. These issues are where the librarianship and citizenship meet, and where librarians enter the public arena armed with authority and expertise, at least theoretically.
But non-library issues are non-library issues, and any issue that the ALA address that has nothing to do with librarianship belongs in a different domain. The ALA speaks for the profession of librarianship, and librarians as professionals have no particular competence to address non-library matters. Any political sputterings issuing from the ALA about non-library issues are the irrelevant opinions of some frustrated librarians. Librarians that think they have something to say qua librarians about non-library issues are similar to what Ortega y Gassett called "learned ignoramuses," referring to professors or experts who think that because of their expertise in one field they have some authority in any other field. We we speak as librarians about library issues, we have authority. We when speak as librarians about non-library issues, we're just blowhards. The SRRT types want the ALA name behind their irrelevant political statements because they know that everyone else would take their political opinions even less seriously if they just stated them in their own name.
Litwin tries to argue that the ALA should still address these issues because of "strong precedents," the primary strong precedent being the SRRT's battle to turn the ALA into a socialist propaganda machine for the past 35 years. But precedents have to be rational to be defended. The SRRT was wrong then, and it's wrong today. Before 1954, the US had a "strong precedent" of legally enforcing racially segregated education. Is that an argument that it should have continued or that we should return to it today? It is if you rely on precedent and not reason or morality.
The ALA is an association for people sharing one interest--librarianship. That's all ALA members necessarily have in common and the only area of competence for the association. There are other associations for addressing political issues. If you want to change the world, go join one. More power to you, and I hope you make our world a better place. It's possible that I myself support some of these associations. But having the ALA make declarations about non-library politics is about as noteworthy as having your local bowling league or chess club make declarations about politics. That's nice, but who cares?
"It seems," Litwin notes, "there is general weariness toward the 60s generation’s persistent connection of the professional, the personal, and the political, and a desire for perspectives that place humanity above efficiency to go out to pasture so that we can continue moving our society ahead at its increasing pace. I think this sentiment is at work where people insist that we should never address 'non library issues.'"
Well, that's certainly one interpretation, and a limited and self-righteous one to be sure. I for one am certainly tired of aging hippies trying to relive the glorious days of their youth protesting the Vietnam War while smoking pot and telling everyone how they're so morally perfect and everyone who disagrees with them is so evil.
The part about how these self-righteous totalitarians "place humanity above efficiency" while people like me, who protest the politicization of every sphere of life, are somehow the opposite, is just balderdash. It has absolutely no connection to my politics or ethics, and every connection to self-righteous, purblind dogmatism. The assertion that I'm doing anything so that "so that we can continue moving our society ahead at its increasing pace" is so absurd I'm not even sure how to respond. That may fit the frustrated trendsetters, but it has no relevance to me. I'd be happy to slow the world down, but not so we could enter some totalitarian nightmare beloved of the SRRT.
And I'm always suspicious when people start talking about how much they value "humanity." It's usually those people who don't value any actual human beings. I don't place efficiency above human beings. But if you collapse the distinction between the personal and the political, or between the professional and the political; if you leave no space for human action that is not saturated with politics; if you collapse these distinctions and then try to force your political views on everyone else, then you might not be valuing efficiency over humanity, but you're certainly valuing something over humanity. You're valuing you're own ego and your own ideology and your own self-righteous dogmatism over the actual human beings who make up our world.
The collapse of the distinction between the professional, the personal, and the political is characteristic of totalitarianism, whether it's of the right-wing fascist variety or the left-wing communist variety. Some of my readers have persisted in attempts to label my politics. I'm allegedly one of the "conservative" librarians, implying that my opponents are somehow "liberal." I've noted many times that I think these labels are next to useless in this debate, but I can say that there's nothing "liberal" about the SRRT and its ilk. Any political view that rejects the separation of a personal or professional domain from politics is a deeply illiberal view. The totalitarians know this, and many of them are honest enough to call themselves "progressives" or "radicals" rather than liberals, but make no mistake. There is nothing liberal about collapsing the distinction between the personal and the political; it has led to horrors in the past and easily could again.
Which brings me to the issue of privacy. (I'm sure you were wondering where that went.) The ALA and most librarians claim to respect the privacy of library users. And privacy is a liberal value, based on the liberal values of individual autonomy and tolerance, born in the horrors of the European wars of religion. Liberals value privacy because of the belief that people should be allowed to think and believe what they like without interference. The political claim most at odds with the liberal value of privacy is the leftist claim that the personal is the political. Privacy is the separation of the personal and the political; it is the the assertion that there is a personal sphere that is always separate from the political. Liberals believe in separating the personal and the political. Other political ideologies don't.
How much privacy can we have if the personal and the political (and by extension the professional) are intertwined? Not much. If you value privacy, then you will not believe that the personal is the political. You will specifically believe that the two are not identical, and that there is a separation of the two absolutely necessary for peace and justice. If you believe that the personal is the political, then you believe that what you do in private is the business of politicians. That's exactly what leftists and "progressives" have been arguing since the 1960s, but there's nothing "liberal" about it.
The SRRT types aren't liberals, and they know it. They don't value privacy, because they believe the personal is the political. They value the political, and for them politics is about organizing, controlling, and manipulating people until they get their way. Leftists and "progressives" always value ideology over privacy and individual autonomy.
How does this apply to the ALA and the battles over non-library issues? It's relevant because the ALA is yet one more domain where the radicals and the "progressives" want to collapse the distinction between the personal and the political, and between the professional and the political. For them it doesn't matter that people come together in the ALA as librarians, because librarianship isn't important compared to their own political and ideological struggles. The claim that the personal is the political is never taken to mean that therefore politics is something we confine to the home and not appropriate to discuss in public. No, it always means that the "progressive" political ideology trumps your right to privacy, and that your personal and professional concerns are not important. Only politics is important.
The ALA and a lot of librarians complain about the government snooping and spying on innocent citizens. I don't like that either. But don't think that just because some group is antagonistic toward the US government or the current Presidential administration that they are any more interested in your privacy or autonomy than the FBI is. The SRRT isn't interested in your privacy and they're not interested in your personal or professional autonomy. They're interested in collapsing the distinction between the personal and the political that sustains the liberal value of privacy and they're interested in shoving their politics down your throat.
Other than that, I don't know what they want.
It may be a secret to Litwin (since I have no idea if he reads the AL), but it's no secret to you that I am one of the "many" who interpreted the SRRT ass-kicking at Midwinter as a defeat of the idea that the ALA Council should address non-library issues. I don't know if that defeat will ever be permanent, but it was definitely a defeat of this idea, with at least one brave Councilor publicly questioning the relevance of these issues. Perhaps the idea will resurrect its slimy head, but it was still no less a defeat.
Litwin goes on to say claim that "in fact, Council’s interest in issues like this tends to move in waves, and the primary reason these resolutions did not gain ground this time may be that Council members are tired of this type of issue after a number of years of addressing them in Council floor debates that were lengthy, emotional and difficult."
Yes, the primary reason may be fatigue, and it may be that the Councilors are starting to make more refined moral and political judgments. Perhaps the more refined moral and political judgments are themselves the result of long, emotional, and difficult debates. Time will tell.
He confesses: "I share the same fatigue, and personally do not regret the present mood of Council - as long as it does not lead us away from dealing with those issues that are outside of the immediate technical concerns of librarians but within our wider domain (issues of intellectual freedom, information ethics and information policy), and as long as we don’t close the door on 'non-library issues' completely."
I can follow him a certain distance, but no further. I have never argued that the ALA should not address wider issues relevant to librarianship (such as intellectual freedom). I may disagree with some stances taken by the ALA, but often as not I don't. I think the ALA claims about so called "banned books" and public pornography are wrong and based on intellectual confusion and dubious moral reasoning, but nevertheless they are proper areas for ALA involvement. These issues are where the librarianship and citizenship meet, and where librarians enter the public arena armed with authority and expertise, at least theoretically.
But non-library issues are non-library issues, and any issue that the ALA address that has nothing to do with librarianship belongs in a different domain. The ALA speaks for the profession of librarianship, and librarians as professionals have no particular competence to address non-library matters. Any political sputterings issuing from the ALA about non-library issues are the irrelevant opinions of some frustrated librarians. Librarians that think they have something to say qua librarians about non-library issues are similar to what Ortega y Gassett called "learned ignoramuses," referring to professors or experts who think that because of their expertise in one field they have some authority in any other field. We we speak as librarians about library issues, we have authority. We when speak as librarians about non-library issues, we're just blowhards. The SRRT types want the ALA name behind their irrelevant political statements because they know that everyone else would take their political opinions even less seriously if they just stated them in their own name.
Litwin tries to argue that the ALA should still address these issues because of "strong precedents," the primary strong precedent being the SRRT's battle to turn the ALA into a socialist propaganda machine for the past 35 years. But precedents have to be rational to be defended. The SRRT was wrong then, and it's wrong today. Before 1954, the US had a "strong precedent" of legally enforcing racially segregated education. Is that an argument that it should have continued or that we should return to it today? It is if you rely on precedent and not reason or morality.
The ALA is an association for people sharing one interest--librarianship. That's all ALA members necessarily have in common and the only area of competence for the association. There are other associations for addressing political issues. If you want to change the world, go join one. More power to you, and I hope you make our world a better place. It's possible that I myself support some of these associations. But having the ALA make declarations about non-library politics is about as noteworthy as having your local bowling league or chess club make declarations about politics. That's nice, but who cares?
"It seems," Litwin notes, "there is general weariness toward the 60s generation’s persistent connection of the professional, the personal, and the political, and a desire for perspectives that place humanity above efficiency to go out to pasture so that we can continue moving our society ahead at its increasing pace. I think this sentiment is at work where people insist that we should never address 'non library issues.'"
Well, that's certainly one interpretation, and a limited and self-righteous one to be sure. I for one am certainly tired of aging hippies trying to relive the glorious days of their youth protesting the Vietnam War while smoking pot and telling everyone how they're so morally perfect and everyone who disagrees with them is so evil.
The part about how these self-righteous totalitarians "place humanity above efficiency" while people like me, who protest the politicization of every sphere of life, are somehow the opposite, is just balderdash. It has absolutely no connection to my politics or ethics, and every connection to self-righteous, purblind dogmatism. The assertion that I'm doing anything so that "so that we can continue moving our society ahead at its increasing pace" is so absurd I'm not even sure how to respond. That may fit the frustrated trendsetters, but it has no relevance to me. I'd be happy to slow the world down, but not so we could enter some totalitarian nightmare beloved of the SRRT.
And I'm always suspicious when people start talking about how much they value "humanity." It's usually those people who don't value any actual human beings. I don't place efficiency above human beings. But if you collapse the distinction between the personal and the political, or between the professional and the political; if you leave no space for human action that is not saturated with politics; if you collapse these distinctions and then try to force your political views on everyone else, then you might not be valuing efficiency over humanity, but you're certainly valuing something over humanity. You're valuing you're own ego and your own ideology and your own self-righteous dogmatism over the actual human beings who make up our world.
The collapse of the distinction between the professional, the personal, and the political is characteristic of totalitarianism, whether it's of the right-wing fascist variety or the left-wing communist variety. Some of my readers have persisted in attempts to label my politics. I'm allegedly one of the "conservative" librarians, implying that my opponents are somehow "liberal." I've noted many times that I think these labels are next to useless in this debate, but I can say that there's nothing "liberal" about the SRRT and its ilk. Any political view that rejects the separation of a personal or professional domain from politics is a deeply illiberal view. The totalitarians know this, and many of them are honest enough to call themselves "progressives" or "radicals" rather than liberals, but make no mistake. There is nothing liberal about collapsing the distinction between the personal and the political; it has led to horrors in the past and easily could again.
Which brings me to the issue of privacy. (I'm sure you were wondering where that went.) The ALA and most librarians claim to respect the privacy of library users. And privacy is a liberal value, based on the liberal values of individual autonomy and tolerance, born in the horrors of the European wars of religion. Liberals value privacy because of the belief that people should be allowed to think and believe what they like without interference. The political claim most at odds with the liberal value of privacy is the leftist claim that the personal is the political. Privacy is the separation of the personal and the political; it is the the assertion that there is a personal sphere that is always separate from the political. Liberals believe in separating the personal and the political. Other political ideologies don't.
How much privacy can we have if the personal and the political (and by extension the professional) are intertwined? Not much. If you value privacy, then you will not believe that the personal is the political. You will specifically believe that the two are not identical, and that there is a separation of the two absolutely necessary for peace and justice. If you believe that the personal is the political, then you believe that what you do in private is the business of politicians. That's exactly what leftists and "progressives" have been arguing since the 1960s, but there's nothing "liberal" about it.
The SRRT types aren't liberals, and they know it. They don't value privacy, because they believe the personal is the political. They value the political, and for them politics is about organizing, controlling, and manipulating people until they get their way. Leftists and "progressives" always value ideology over privacy and individual autonomy.
How does this apply to the ALA and the battles over non-library issues? It's relevant because the ALA is yet one more domain where the radicals and the "progressives" want to collapse the distinction between the personal and the political, and between the professional and the political. For them it doesn't matter that people come together in the ALA as librarians, because librarianship isn't important compared to their own political and ideological struggles. The claim that the personal is the political is never taken to mean that therefore politics is something we confine to the home and not appropriate to discuss in public. No, it always means that the "progressive" political ideology trumps your right to privacy, and that your personal and professional concerns are not important. Only politics is important.
The ALA and a lot of librarians complain about the government snooping and spying on innocent citizens. I don't like that either. But don't think that just because some group is antagonistic toward the US government or the current Presidential administration that they are any more interested in your privacy or autonomy than the FBI is. The SRRT isn't interested in your privacy and they're not interested in your personal or professional autonomy. They're interested in collapsing the distinction between the personal and the political that sustains the liberal value of privacy and they're interested in shoving their politics down your throat.
Other than that, I don't know what they want.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Library Porn Challenge
Libraries are all about "access to information," librarians are always saying. The mission of the ALA, according to its own mission statement, "is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all (my emphasis). So far as the ALA is concerned, the mission of libraries is to enhance learning and provide access to information.
Of course they throw in some vague statements as a sop to the SRRT folks, stuff about libraries having "broad social responsibilities" and contributing to "solving the critical problems of society," but even this is in the context of the educational role of the library "to help inform and educate the people of the United States on these problems and to encourage them to examine the many views on and the facts regarding each problem."
The ALA also says it "promotes the creation, maintenance, and enhancement of a learning society" and works to "provide lifelong learning services to all." This all sounds lovely. I'm all for a learning society and lifelong learning for everyone. I doubt it will ever happen, but isn't it pretty to think about. I can honestly say that I approve wholeheartedly of the ALA's mission to provide educational opportunities for people who might not otherwise have them. This is a necessary public good in a liberal democracy, and I'm all for it.
What I've never understood, however, is the way this mission to enhance learning and provide access to information gets applied to Internet pornography. LIS News links to this story about a county executive in Rochester, NY who is trying to halt 70% of a libraries funding because it provides Internet access to porn sites for those who request it. Of course we're all supposed to laugh at this poor witless county executive who objects to publicly subsidized porn. Of course we're all supposed to mock her along with the writer on LIS News when he notes that "she's doing it for the children." We certainly wouldn't want to do anything for the children! Oh, how benighted this person is! It's a good thing we're all sophisticated enough to know that some guy drooling on public computers and massaging himself with affection is the kind of thing the public should be subsidizing.
Are there any arguments at all for providing publicly subsidized porn? I can't think of any. The civil libertarians certainly can't argue that it's a free speech issue, because no one is stopping the porn merchants from speaking. I don't see how it can be an educational issue, because presumably the porn viewers in the library already know how to have sex (at least theoretically) and how to objectify women as automatons completely devoted to the sexual pleasure of frustrated perverts, even if they have a lot more practice at the latter. Are we supposed to support it because everything is "information" and "the people" have a right to access all information? That seems to be the ALA's line.
Even if everything is information, as the ALA porn mavens imply, then all information isn't equal. If it's so important for the public to have taxpayer subsidized porn, then why don't all these public libraries subscribe to Barely Legal, Hustler, Juggs, or Swank? (Lest you wonder at my wide-ranging knowledge of pornographic magazines, I should note that the Wikipedia is, as usual, a treasure house of knowledge you won't find in Britannica.) Libraries could join the Barely Legal website and increase public access to some of their recently added videos: Barely Legal School Girls and 2 in 1 Hole! Only $34.62/month! No, at over $400/year I guess that's pretty expensive for a lot of libraries. But they could try the $3.86 trial membership and see how the public responds. Put an ad in the local paper, and I'm betting user stats would rise dramatically and they could claim the increased usage justified more funding. If anyone complains, just tell them the public has a right to access all information!
Because, as we know, if someone has a right to something, then it's everyone else's duty to provide it. If a person has a right to legal representation, then it's everyone else's duty to pay for it if they can't afford it. Okay, so if everyone has a right to view porn, then it's everyone else's duty to fork over their tax dollars to subsidize that right.
Do the library porn mavens have any substantial argument? We're not talking about censorship, though I suppose according to the twisted logic of the "Banned Books" folks public libraries are "censoring" Barely Legal by not subscribing. We're talking about libraries providing publicly subsidized porn. The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet porn at the taxpayer's expense. An Internet filter for porn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core porn magazines for their public library. It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library. The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it. That's a very convenient ploy for people incapable of reasoning, moral or otherwise. Nevertheless, there is no good argument for providing free access to porn. Libraries exist to serve the public good, and what argument can be made that free access to porn is a public good?
The news article claims this dispute "may inflame a national debate over First Amendment rights and access to Web sites at libraries." If that's a national debate, then it's a debate among illiterates. Here's the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution, for those who may not have read the thing in a while:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Where in this amendment is there anything about publicly subsidized access to any information? It's abundantly clear these days that most people have no idea what "establishment of religion" or the "free exercise thereof" mean, but everyone seems to have a good understanding of the freedoms of speech and of the press. These are the arguments used against government attempts to censor pornographic publications and websites. But what do these have to do with libraries and porn? Are we to understand that "the right of the people peacefully to assemble" means they have the right to peacefully assemble at the public library and watch porn videos at the public's expense? It's clear that porn publishers have a right to their free speech, but does anyone have a right to view porn and make someone else pay for it?
Presumably the librarians who argue against porn filters because they check our "right" to "access information" believe that people have a right to view porn and have the public pay for it. That's the only logical conclusion to their sad little argument. Here's my challenge to those librarians who think the public should subsidize access to pornography and who mock doing things "for the children": Subscribe to Penthouse for your library. C'mon, it's milder than Barely Legal. (At least I assume it is. I haven't seen any Penthouses since my brother left home, but I don't remember them being quite as raunchy as the BL website.) Here's the subscription information. A year's subscription is only $19.95, well within the reach of every library. Then, put it up in the children's section of the library. What? You won't do that? Why not? This is definitely your opportunity to put up or shut up.
Of course they throw in some vague statements as a sop to the SRRT folks, stuff about libraries having "broad social responsibilities" and contributing to "solving the critical problems of society," but even this is in the context of the educational role of the library "to help inform and educate the people of the United States on these problems and to encourage them to examine the many views on and the facts regarding each problem."
The ALA also says it "promotes the creation, maintenance, and enhancement of a learning society" and works to "provide lifelong learning services to all." This all sounds lovely. I'm all for a learning society and lifelong learning for everyone. I doubt it will ever happen, but isn't it pretty to think about. I can honestly say that I approve wholeheartedly of the ALA's mission to provide educational opportunities for people who might not otherwise have them. This is a necessary public good in a liberal democracy, and I'm all for it.
What I've never understood, however, is the way this mission to enhance learning and provide access to information gets applied to Internet pornography. LIS News links to this story about a county executive in Rochester, NY who is trying to halt 70% of a libraries funding because it provides Internet access to porn sites for those who request it. Of course we're all supposed to laugh at this poor witless county executive who objects to publicly subsidized porn. Of course we're all supposed to mock her along with the writer on LIS News when he notes that "she's doing it for the children." We certainly wouldn't want to do anything for the children! Oh, how benighted this person is! It's a good thing we're all sophisticated enough to know that some guy drooling on public computers and massaging himself with affection is the kind of thing the public should be subsidizing.
Are there any arguments at all for providing publicly subsidized porn? I can't think of any. The civil libertarians certainly can't argue that it's a free speech issue, because no one is stopping the porn merchants from speaking. I don't see how it can be an educational issue, because presumably the porn viewers in the library already know how to have sex (at least theoretically) and how to objectify women as automatons completely devoted to the sexual pleasure of frustrated perverts, even if they have a lot more practice at the latter. Are we supposed to support it because everything is "information" and "the people" have a right to access all information? That seems to be the ALA's line.
Even if everything is information, as the ALA porn mavens imply, then all information isn't equal. If it's so important for the public to have taxpayer subsidized porn, then why don't all these public libraries subscribe to Barely Legal, Hustler, Juggs, or Swank? (Lest you wonder at my wide-ranging knowledge of pornographic magazines, I should note that the Wikipedia is, as usual, a treasure house of knowledge you won't find in Britannica.) Libraries could join the Barely Legal website and increase public access to some of their recently added videos: Barely Legal School Girls and 2 in 1 Hole! Only $34.62/month! No, at over $400/year I guess that's pretty expensive for a lot of libraries. But they could try the $3.86 trial membership and see how the public responds. Put an ad in the local paper, and I'm betting user stats would rise dramatically and they could claim the increased usage justified more funding. If anyone complains, just tell them the public has a right to access all information!
Because, as we know, if someone has a right to something, then it's everyone else's duty to provide it. If a person has a right to legal representation, then it's everyone else's duty to pay for it if they can't afford it. Okay, so if everyone has a right to view porn, then it's everyone else's duty to fork over their tax dollars to subsidize that right.
Do the library porn mavens have any substantial argument? We're not talking about censorship, though I suppose according to the twisted logic of the "Banned Books" folks public libraries are "censoring" Barely Legal by not subscribing. We're talking about libraries providing publicly subsidized porn. The argument against Internet filters may have some technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all, which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet porn at the taxpayer's expense. An Internet filter for porn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core porn magazines for their public library. It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library. The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it. That's a very convenient ploy for people incapable of reasoning, moral or otherwise. Nevertheless, there is no good argument for providing free access to porn. Libraries exist to serve the public good, and what argument can be made that free access to porn is a public good?
The news article claims this dispute "may inflame a national debate over First Amendment rights and access to Web sites at libraries." If that's a national debate, then it's a debate among illiterates. Here's the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution, for those who may not have read the thing in a while:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Where in this amendment is there anything about publicly subsidized access to any information? It's abundantly clear these days that most people have no idea what "establishment of religion" or the "free exercise thereof" mean, but everyone seems to have a good understanding of the freedoms of speech and of the press. These are the arguments used against government attempts to censor pornographic publications and websites. But what do these have to do with libraries and porn? Are we to understand that "the right of the people peacefully to assemble" means they have the right to peacefully assemble at the public library and watch porn videos at the public's expense? It's clear that porn publishers have a right to their free speech, but does anyone have a right to view porn and make someone else pay for it?
Presumably the librarians who argue against porn filters because they check our "right" to "access information" believe that people have a right to view porn and have the public pay for it. That's the only logical conclusion to their sad little argument. Here's my challenge to those librarians who think the public should subsidize access to pornography and who mock doing things "for the children": Subscribe to Penthouse for your library. C'mon, it's milder than Barely Legal. (At least I assume it is. I haven't seen any Penthouses since my brother left home, but I don't remember them being quite as raunchy as the BL website.) Here's the subscription information. A year's subscription is only $19.95, well within the reach of every library. Then, put it up in the children's section of the library. What? You won't do that? Why not? This is definitely your opportunity to put up or shut up.
Monday, February 05, 2007
SRRT Report: We Got our Ass Kicked
You'll have to excuse the language today. I know this is a family blog, but I just couldn't think of an appropriately strong phrase to describe the SRRT ass-kicking by the ALA Council.
At Library Juice, you can find the SRRT's own report about the success of their shenanigans at ALA Council in Seattle. The two resolutions totally unrelated to librarianship were defeated, I knew, but I hadn't realized just how soundly. I hadn't noticed the actual numbers when reading about the ALA Council votes regarding defunding the Iraq War and lobbying to have President Bush impeached, but considering the vote count the SRRT report should have been called "We Got Our Collectivist and Collective Ass Kicked."
The resolution on the Iraq War was defeated 98-48. That's a pretty good ass-kicking by anyone's standards. According to the balanced and objective author of the SRRT report, "Almost everyone we talked with was in favor on a personal level, but there is a disconnect between their personal views and their professional lives. We just have to work harder to connect our issues and break down these barriers to fundamentally change our society."
"A disconnect between their personal views and their professional lives." Well, that's certainly one way to put it. Another way to put it is that, unlike some of the SRRT folks, not everyone subscribes to the totalitarian mindset that the personal and the professional and everything else is subsumed within the political. There is nothing outside the SRRT! Hail the SRRT! Somebody should tell the totalitarians at the SRRT that lots of people like to separate their personal and their professional lives, but I guess that's harder to understand if you don't have a personal life.
This is what I have to say to the SRRT totalitarians: it's not so much that I want to separate my professional life from my personal life as that I want to separate my professional life from your personal life. You can have your rallies and give your self-righteous speeches on your own time, but why should the rest of us be inflicted with your troubled personalities? Hyper yourselves into a frenzy that the ALA isn't righting all the wrongs of the world one library card at a time in the privy of your own home.
Apparently more folks on the Council are starting to agree with me. Consider the resolution to impeach President Bush. As I've stated before, what you think of President Bush (or the Iraq War, for that matter) isn't important. I've deliberately avoided stating my personal beliefs on these issues. What matters is that the ALA has no business taking political stands unrelated to American libraries and the SRRT folk have no business to thrust their personal politics on the organization.
The SRRT report didn't even have the heart to give the full vote numbers, but limply noted that "in the end, only about ten councilors voted for the resolution." I'm reminded of a comment made about Walter Mondale when Ronald Reagan defeated him 525 electoral votes to 13 in 1984: "That's only 13 more votes than I got, and I didn't even run!"
The SRRT folk who are so dedicated to "diversity" are still going after the poor little Boy Scouts. This is despite the fact that the majority of Scout Leaders are allegedly pedophiles, which should endear them to the open-minded SRRT radicals. Fortunately, their latest jab has been stalled until Annual. Maybe for the SRRT, diversity means that the ALA has room for both Stalinists and Trotskyites. At Annual they'll probably introduce a resolution that anyone who is a Boy Scout isn't even allowed to use libraries. Because you know the motto of the SRRT: Intellectual Freedom is the Freedom to Think Like Us!
At Library Juice, you can find the SRRT's own report about the success of their shenanigans at ALA Council in Seattle. The two resolutions totally unrelated to librarianship were defeated, I knew, but I hadn't realized just how soundly. I hadn't noticed the actual numbers when reading about the ALA Council votes regarding defunding the Iraq War and lobbying to have President Bush impeached, but considering the vote count the SRRT report should have been called "We Got Our Collectivist and Collective Ass Kicked."
The resolution on the Iraq War was defeated 98-48. That's a pretty good ass-kicking by anyone's standards. According to the balanced and objective author of the SRRT report, "Almost everyone we talked with was in favor on a personal level, but there is a disconnect between their personal views and their professional lives. We just have to work harder to connect our issues and break down these barriers to fundamentally change our society."
"A disconnect between their personal views and their professional lives." Well, that's certainly one way to put it. Another way to put it is that, unlike some of the SRRT folks, not everyone subscribes to the totalitarian mindset that the personal and the professional and everything else is subsumed within the political. There is nothing outside the SRRT! Hail the SRRT! Somebody should tell the totalitarians at the SRRT that lots of people like to separate their personal and their professional lives, but I guess that's harder to understand if you don't have a personal life.
This is what I have to say to the SRRT totalitarians: it's not so much that I want to separate my professional life from my personal life as that I want to separate my professional life from your personal life. You can have your rallies and give your self-righteous speeches on your own time, but why should the rest of us be inflicted with your troubled personalities? Hyper yourselves into a frenzy that the ALA isn't righting all the wrongs of the world one library card at a time in the privy of your own home.
Apparently more folks on the Council are starting to agree with me. Consider the resolution to impeach President Bush. As I've stated before, what you think of President Bush (or the Iraq War, for that matter) isn't important. I've deliberately avoided stating my personal beliefs on these issues. What matters is that the ALA has no business taking political stands unrelated to American libraries and the SRRT folk have no business to thrust their personal politics on the organization.
The SRRT report didn't even have the heart to give the full vote numbers, but limply noted that "in the end, only about ten councilors voted for the resolution." I'm reminded of a comment made about Walter Mondale when Ronald Reagan defeated him 525 electoral votes to 13 in 1984: "That's only 13 more votes than I got, and I didn't even run!"
The SRRT folk who are so dedicated to "diversity" are still going after the poor little Boy Scouts. This is despite the fact that the majority of Scout Leaders are allegedly pedophiles, which should endear them to the open-minded SRRT radicals. Fortunately, their latest jab has been stalled until Annual. Maybe for the SRRT, diversity means that the ALA has room for both Stalinists and Trotskyites. At Annual they'll probably introduce a resolution that anyone who is a Boy Scout isn't even allowed to use libraries. Because you know the motto of the SRRT: Intellectual Freedom is the Freedom to Think Like Us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
