What You Already Know

New Thinglink Uses (probably not new, but you know).

2011-09-28T13:02:00.004-05:00

I don't understand "tax the rich" rhetoric

2011-09-20T11:13:00.002-05:00

There is one thing in politics that I’m completely unable to understand. I can’t even put my brain into the mode of recognizing the thought process- the thinkers’ logical path- that leads to this belief. This is, of course, the progressive tax system and its proponents as identified by their cries of “tax the rich.”

First, let’s discuss the “paying their fair share” argument. What exactly does that mean? I love how such a subjective term as “fair share” is used here, as opposed to “equal share” or “proportionate share”. What is the fair share of someone who makes $10,000/year? Is it zero dollars? Is that fair? What about the services they use? What about the high income earners? According to this http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277652/progressive-income-tax-veronique-de-rugy the top 5% of earners pay 60% of all taxes, but only ear.35% of personal income. Is that fair? So, what is fair? The best answer I can come up with is that “fair share” is more than whatever they’re paying at the time the argument it being made. Fair share for the top earners = more; for the bottom earners it = less. It does not, however, equal a percentage of income in any way, shape, or form.

Second, let’s look at the next argument I hear most often. “They can afford it.” This is perhaps the most immoral, horrific argument I’ve ever heard. Who cares if they can afford it? What right does anyone else have to their money simply because they can afford it? I don’t need my entire bag of chips, or even the second half of my $5 foot-long; I also don’t need to give them to you. Should I give them to you, if you’re starving- or just hungry and without cash? Maybe. I’ll entertain that argument. Should I give them to you if you are, as you’re asking me for it, looking up reasons why I should on your Smartphone- or taking a picture of my waste with your flip camera phone? Maybe, if I can lecture you on how your phone is a luxury and your monthly bill could have bought you some lunches. Now, I should do a lot of things. I should have gotten a veggie sub instead of the meatball. I should have remembered to actually bring my lunch from home. However, if I don’t, or don’t want to, I should NOT be forced to do something you think I should do. Does it make me an evil person to go eat that other half of my sandwich- and get overstuffed- in front of someone who’s dying of starvation? That’s a pretty good chance. However, it does NOT mean, at all, that I should be forced to give the other half of my sandwich to someone of your choosing. If you start doing that, I’ll never buy a foot-long again, and then we all lose. Bottom line, because someone should does not give the majority the right to force them to. This is imposing your morality on other people via guns and force- which is always wrong.

But, you say, they don’t NEED that much money. No one should ever have hundreds of millions of dollars while other people starve in the street, or die of treatable diseases. Here, however, is the rub. That money wasn’t gotten through ill means (more often than not). If it was, prosecute. However, to take the Bill Gates example- he earned his money by providing something of value at a price that matched what consumers were willing to pay. This was fair. This was good. It’s the same principle behind selling saltines. Someone got rich off of selling saltines at a price that other people were willing to pay. However, Bill Gates did this so well- he provided SO MUCH VALUE TO SO MANY PEOPLE- that he collected an almost unheard of amount of wealth… actually, he earned an almost unheard of amount of income that he- through other value for money transactions, turned into wealth. His income was taxed. The product he sold was taxed. The income the purchasers used to buy it was taxed. The products they sold to make that income was taxed. No one has ripped anyone off here. Everything is above board and good for everyone. In fact, a LOT of taxes have been paid to the government (if you’re wondering why the government should take any money from this, I’m not answering that here, but good question!) So, the windows user gets value and is happy (or decides they overpaid and doesn’t do it again), Gates gets the money and is happy. The government gets its money and should be happy.

That’s not the end, though. See, Bill Gates has provided so much value, and received so much income in exchange, that he can’t spend it all. (Well, he probably COULD spend it all, but he doesn’t want to.) So, what happens is Bill gets sales pitches to buy things- well, not things so much as parts of companies. He’s not stupid and, like every other human alive, doesn’t want to spend his money on things that don’t have a value that matches this asking price, so he spends his money on things (parts of companies) that offer a good value- maybe even, in the long run, a very good value. However, this is, in essence, the same as above. These companies have valued themselves at a certain price. Bill has agreed upon that value- or negotiated a new value that they both agree upon- and an honest transaction has been made. This company then goes on to produce something of value and sell to other people- same as above- and lots of taxes are paid. Because of Bill’s investment, this company is now worth a whole lot more than Bill originally paid for it. Bill has amassed wealth. (Same thing goes with buying gold, cotton, oil, etc. Bill buys was an agreed price for accepted value, hoping the value will increase, it’s honest and above board.)

We’re still not finished. Bill has some kids and he’s dying. He’s dying with a net worth- not just his bank account balance- of such a huge number we can’t even imagine what it would look like. I’m talking Scrooge McDuck figures here. So, Bill decides he wants to give this all to his kids, nephews, and me. Why? Because I’m a nice guy and he’s heard about me- and this is my explanation. So, he earned all this money provide value and purchasing bits of things that provide value to other people. His money has been taxed and the money of everyone involved has been taxed. Hell, even his property is arbitrarily valued and taxed annually. He pays taxes on all his employees, etc. So, why, when this money has been earned honestly and for equally provided value (and has already been taxed) should ANY of the money he wants to give to me be taxed? What claim does the government (or any other people) have on that money? I didn’t earn it? So. Bill did and he wanted to give it to me when he died. Does the reason why matter? This money has already been taxed at some level. Why should Bill just giving it to me justify another chunk of it taken away?

So, these are the things I don’t understand the reasoning behind. I don’t understand how someone can think this through, logically, and decide that Bill needs to pay even more in taxes. If someone gives me a valid reason (that isn’t extortion- he must so the poor people don’t rise up and kill him out of anger) please do so.

Amazon+Netflix+Internet = Libraries' Destruction?

2011-09-12T22:43:00.002-05:00

Amazon is thinking about a subscription service ala netflix for books. OK, I've been predicting this for a while- but more as for a service for libraries to subscribe to. However, if this is offered like netflix, how much longer can we compete? Let's look at it, shall we. Netflix for $8/month. Internet for $15/month. Amazon for (i'm totally guessing here) $15/month. So, we've got $38 per month. Another couple of hundred per year for an e-reader and a roku box/appletv. That's about $650 per year. For a family of 4 that would be $162.50 annual per person. (the first year, this would go down to about $100/year/person after the initial device expenditures). San Francisco public library spends approximately $86 per capita. What happens when the cost in san fran is more than the companies? How long before libraries can't compete? When do we admit defeat? When is it going to be cheaper to simply provide the poor with their own devices and accounts?

Boys don't read... crappy books.

2011-08-20T14:23:00.006-05:00

There's a lot of response to how horrible a recent NY Times opinion about why teen boys don't read. A lot the response seems to think this article is bashing women.

I call BS. Women have- at least in the last couple of centuries- ALWAYS had female authors to read. The list is LONG. Anyone under 40 grew up reading them alongside male authors all throughout school. From To Kill a Mockingbird to Sense and Sensibility (and even Ethan Frome!) there is no shortage of women authors being taught- when the work is good. Also, it's incredibly hypocritical to say that women suffered through having to read books by men about men- that they can't relate to or don't want to- and then complain that a man might complain about the same thing in reverse! (does it matter who wrote the book if it's great? NO. So, why complain about it?)

Boys' ya fiction is bad- almost without exception- and I mostly recommend that they skip it altogether and go straight to "adult" books. I do the same with girls' books. Basically, they're romance novels- and are VERY OFTEN poorly written. When recommending books, if they aren't going to read adult books because they don't read, then they are a lost cause and they should stick with manga.

Also, let's look at the crap adults read. (other than twilight- which they do. That is the shittiest prose I think I've ever read. EVER. Had to quit it early because the fact that she made millions why being so bad at her job made my head hurt.) Romance novels? Detective novels? Romance novels sold as detective novels (I'm looking at you JD Robb/Nora Roberts)? Dirk Pitt being "co" written? How many James Patterson (with someone you've never heard of) books can be put out in a year? Star wars novelizations? Nicholas GD Sparks? I'm not going to go on anymore because it will make me cry.

Sorry, got a little off topic. The point is, most books are bad. That's a bottom line truth- ya or not, girls or boys. Also, this is a market issue. The reason we need more boys to read is because we need more boys to buy books! It's like half the market is there for the taking- or so someone thinks. Maybe they just need to start making better ya nonfiction? Or quit caring and tell them about good books to read, regardless of age or author.

Libraries ARE NOT FREE! STOP LYING!

2011-06-25T11:57:00.003-05:00

“You'll be amazed to know that so many things you're paying for are now available at no charge at your local branch.”

This is absolutely and unequivocally FALSE. Libraries are not free. Library services are not free. Library materials are not free. (Unless, of course you pay no taxes at all, ever, anywhere.) As I’ve stated before, the cheapest a library gets is $13 +/- per capita. Would we call other things free that cost $13 per person? Are baseball games free if you get an outfield bleacher seat? Is a movie ticket free? NO. Is the library a good deal? Yes, to those that use it, the library is a great deal. In fact, the more you use it, the better a deal it becomes. However, it is NOT free.

Everyone in library land should do themselves a favor and stop spreading this lie. Instead, we should tell the truth. The library is not free; it’s something you’ve already paid for. An apt analogy (in my mind) is that the library is like a Groupon deal that get’s you $100 of food for about $13. Once you’ve paid for that, your food isn’t free, it’s just really cheap. (The big flaw in this analogy, if course, is that you would CHOOSE to buy the groupon, you have no real choice about the library- but that’s a different story altogether.)

If you think it’s free, you simply think you’re passing up a free service- like not taking that sample pizza bagel at SAMS. However, if you don’t use the library, you’re paying for something you’re not using- like buying the box of pizza bagels and leaving them on the bottom of the cart instead of taking them home. From a library marketing standpoint, I don’t see WHY you would ever tell someone it’s free. Are you more likely to use something that’s free, or something that you’ve already paid for so you might as well get your money’s worth? I definitely don’t know why Linda McMaken at Investopedia would make this ignorant mistake.

Fun with Figures

2011-06-14T12:28:00.001-05:00

My last idea got me thinking. The numbers just seems amazing to me, so I thought I would take them out to some logical conclusions. First, I was wrong about Kern County. It’s San Antonio that spends the least per capita at $13.96. Now, let’s keep looking at those numbers.

Approximately 70% (really 68%, but I’m giving the benefit to a higher number) of the population has a library card. Only 35% of cardholders used the library in between one and five times in the last year (so, at most, less than once every 2 months). 15% use the library at least almost every 2 weeks. With the in between visitors, data shows that 76% of cardholders used the library in the last year. (That means that 26% of cardholders used the library more than 5 times a year and less than 25).

I’m going to quit picking on San Francisco and use San Antonio as my example base. Let’s use their population of 1,513,800 as listed in the lit. So, we can fairly assume that approx 1,059,660 people in San Antonio have library cards. We can also fairly assume that only 805,342 have used these cards in the last year- and 254,318 haven’t. So, these numbers show 708,458 people in San Antonio haven’t used the library AT ALL in the last year. This is 47% of the population!

Now, let’s look at the budget and break it down like CB4-

$13.96 per capita expenditure gives San Antonio Public Library a budget of a little over $21mm annually. That gives the library a budget of almost $20/library cardholder. This means the budget is $26/library USER. I could get into shades here and only count a percentage of the minimal users, but I won’t. (in San Fran that equals out to approx $117/USER). So, the 41% of cardholders that account for the library’s real circ numbers (especially the top 15 percent cardholders) are getting a STEAL. BTW, 15 percent of cardholders equals approx 20% of USERS that drive your real circ and stats. So, in San Antonio, that’s 158,949 people that are “heavy users”. That’s 10.5% of the total population uses the library on (at least) a bi-weekly basis. These people- even assuming that they only check out 1 item each every 25 times a year- account for 3,973,725 circs/year. That’s 62% of the library’s total circulation (6,374,109 in the year of these numbers)! Also, from the same source, that means they account for 93% of library visits (4,267,488 total)!!!! This is from a minority of cardholders/users and 11% of the population!

Please someone correct my math here- because this CAN’T BE RIGHT! If they account for at least 62% of circ, can we assume that 62% of the budget is devoted toward them? I think for this thought exercise we can. So, that’s approx $13,020,000 per year. Let’s break this into cost per heavy user- we get $81.91 each. That leaves 38% of the budget to cover the remaining user pop- costing about $9.90 for each one of them. This is fuzzy, I know, but I just think it’s an interesting way to look at it.

No matter how you look at it, about 10% of the population is actually using the library. Even at (one of) the lowest spending per capita library systems in the country, these people are getting a service that should cost them at least almost $82 each for a cost of about $14 each. Does anyone else see a problem with this? Can anyone explain to me why this is fair or right?

Member, or MemberPlus?

2011-06-02T12:09:00.002-05:00

Libraries everywhere are in (or under threat of) a budget crisis. State budget crises have rolled downhill and the local governments are being forced to trim the fat. Easy targets of such belt tightening are public libraries. For better or worse, libraries are viewed as subsidized entertainment for those unable, or unwilling, to shill out the cash for their book and audio/visual pleasures. After all, we’ve got schools to educate and spread literacy…

The top library spending per capita according to THIS (a bit dated) is in San Francisco at $68.68. The most frugal is Kern County Library at $14.43 per citizen. For the sake of argument, let us assume that these numbers are still close to accurate AND that cost of living isn’t an issue and San Francisco Library patrons get a little less than 5 times the value out of their library that those living in Bakersfield get. I will, for illustration, concede these points. The other listed libraries spread across to cover the gap pretty well. However, we must consider that the cost per LIBRARY USER is HIGHER than cost per citizen given the numbers HERE. Plus, look at the small 15% minority of users actually drive library circulation with heavy use. They sure are getting their money’s worth.

--- Just for math fun, the annual per capita cost of the library is $68.68, but if only 70% of the total population of SanFran is a library card holder (563,665, est.). The per-USER cost is actually over $98/year. ---

So, if you’re still reading beyond that riveting opening, I’m getting to my point now. What if we found a way to tap into the finances of that 15% of library card holders that are “SUPER USERS”? Using the San Francisco example with the hypothetical 70% library card holders, and the cited 15% of “super users”, that would be an estimated “super user” population of 84,550 people. These are already library members, but what if we offered them a different level of service? What if we offered to make them MemberPLUS members?

If we offered these people a special membership at an extra cost of $5/month, that would raise another $5 million dollars annually from those people that REALLY like the library. What, however, would be the perks? What would make them want to pay extra for something they are already using? What if MemberPlus members were allowed extended checkout times? What DVD checkout limit was doubled with your MemberPlus membership? What if there was streaming content available only to MemberPlus cardholders? MemberPlus patrons could be notified in advance of new books and bestsellers- allowing them first dibs on requests. MemberPlus patrons could get library e-mail addresses and cloud storage space. MemberPlus patrons could get discounts at local area businesses that support the library.

What’s the downside? These are the people that already drive our circ and usage. Our use would go up, the program would pay for itself AND fund library improvements, special programs, fill budget gaps, employ more staff, etc. Even at half the number of people, we’re talking a good chunk of change. We aren’t creating an elite class of patron, because they’re already an elite class of user. EVERY business caters to it’s top customers.

I’m interested to see if anyone moves to this- or already does it.

Let's Burn the Libraries to the Ground!

2011-05-18T13:40:00.002-05:00

It's ok to weep for the passing of ages, but who are you to blow against the wind. (And who said you couldn’t paraphrase Neil Finn and Paul Simon in the same sentence? Nobody, that’s who.)

There has been a lot of talk, and complaining, and excuse making, sentimentality, and puffery lately about libraries and their ~~demise~~ future. First, let me explain that I am only speaking to PUBLIC libraries. Public libraries are dying a slow and painful death. This is hard for me to say, because a public library feeds my family, but I wish someone would serve as the Institutions’ second and put them out of their misery. But, what about A country without libraries.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Think of what a horrible world they will grow up in without vast repositories of paper shown to them by a knowledge ~~gatekeeper~~ guide? Well, to this, I offer a big RASPBERRY.

After all, “Other than traveling on foot, horses were the proven method of transportation for centuries. They pulled carts, stagecoaches, covered wagons, and delivery vans. They hauled water tanks, men, and hoses to fires and for a time sped pony express riders to their destinations.”
But cars won the day.

There were LAWS that favored the horse as transportation, but CARS WON THE DAY.
I am sure that somewhere someone wept when the last wheelwright closed shop. I’m sure horse breeders took a hit. I’m sure horse breeders and wheelwrights worked to promote the social need for their professions. People suffered. Poor people couldn’t afford automobiles (some still can’t). I would bet that there were arguments made to preserve the horse drawn cart by any means necessary due to whatever advantages it had over the automobile. Cars got better and cheaper. Mass transit filled gaps for the needy. Wheelwrights learned new trades- maybe even became mechanics. Though this did not happen overnight, compared to the eons of animal powered transportation it definitely feels that way.
Public libraries, as we know them, don’t have nearly as long a history. I will not bore you with a history lesson here. I only bring it up in reference to the analogy. Technology is killing libraries as surely as the car killed the wheelwrights. Despite more people being able to read than at almost any other point in human history, it seems as if reading for recreation is in decline. Sure, movies, television, the internet have all taken a share of the entertainment pie. (Much as radio had before.) To the credit of public libraries, they have noticed and tried to shift and keep up with the time. Public libraries all over the country are now Blockbuster + Sam Goody + internet cafes + Borders + homework help + foreign language classes + etc… Blockbuster has lost. Sam Goody has lost. Internet cafes have lost. Borders lost. I’ll stop beating that dead horse. Libraries also offer downloadable e-books, videos, audio-books, etc. Maybe that’s the future, maybe not. I do know that those services are only tangentially connected to the brick and mortar- and librarian staffed- public libraries so that they cannot be their savior. Also, I’m sure there were all kinds of bells and whistles added to the last horse drawn buggies in an effort to keep them relevant.

Instead we get sentimental drivel about how libraries are good and librarians are necessary, and how the smell of library books cures cancer… ok, sorry for the drift into hyperbole, just fighting fire with fire. Librarians, much like wheelwrights probably were, are busy proving their importance. They keep stats, they showcase programming. They do things that they can record in order to justify their existence and their salaries (not to mention their Master’s Degrees). It, like the cake, is a lie. Public librarians have convinced themselves of it, however.
So, someone PLEASE KILL THE PUBLIC LIBRARY!
But wait… why not just change it? Why not let it evolve to meet the needs of its users? Because if that ever happens, and it might not if baseless sentimentality holds strong, it will be slow and painful and it will get much, much worse before it gets better. But the car overtook the buggy… yes, but the buggy wasn’t backed by massive government bureaucracy and massive national organizations with dues paying members that would be out of jobs.

I advocate metaphorically burning public libraries to ashes so something else can rise and take their place. Is it community centers? Is it an online document repository? It is public internet cafes set up in malls and strip centers? Is it small neighborhood book swaps? Is it a combination of all of the above? Is it the black swan that no one has seen coming on the horizon? I don’t fully know. As I have lamented in the past, something might be lost along with the public library, but I’m sure something was lost when we stopped getting pulled by horses too. What was that, you ask? I’m not sure- and that’s the point.

The bottom line is libraries and citizens must learn to do more with less. Innovation and change will make libraries of the future leaner, stronger, and better.

The Other Shoe is Dropping

2011-05-17T09:43:00.004-05:00

Here's my response to nice a blog post at Agnostic Maybe . Then there's his response back, and response to his response. It's all very dizzy.

Because a lot of librarians feel like they’ve been getting away with something for a very long time. They feel like the other shoe is bound to drop. I mean, how much should they get paid for showing someone where to type in the address bar? Or for writing a schedule for their clerks?

No, the believe because they know they have been getting paid for not doing a whole lot of work. They feel guilty for this and realize that someone else must figure this out one day- and that will be the end of the public library.

on May 17, 2011 at 1:52 AM | Reply Andy
Interesting comment. So, what do you do at your library, if I might ask?

Based on the feedback from my basic computer classes, that kind of information (showing them where to type in the address bar) is rather valuable. While it may be easy to me, it’s not to other people; they talk about it as it will give them confidence to go online, email, and be more active online with their kids and grandkids. But I guess that’s basically stealing from taxpayers, right?

on May 17, 2011 at 10:40 AM | Reply stuartspencersmith
I am a public service and reference librarian. I was a corporate librarian before. I understand the benefits of adult technology education, but I also see- every single day, all day long- the same people with the same problems that don’t learn- because they don’t want to. I see people demanding that I dial the phone number for them. I see a babysitting service provided by employees with Master’s Degrees. I see employees steadfastly holding on to the past instead of realizing that THEY must change for the institution to still have meaning.

I’m on the front lines of the digital divide. It’s not ebooks here, it’s DVDs, Plenty of Fish and free online MMORPGs. We are not providing education, but entertainment. We are already a community center/homeless shelter/daycare.

NONE of these things require a librarian- or at least a librarian’s education and training. So, old guard wait to retire while bitching and putting their heads in the sand. The young turks are worn down under the weight of the institution. We are left with the ones who are happy with things the way they are- and what does that say about any profession when you’re left with the ones who are happy with things the way they are?

The old guard KNOWS what they used to do and how much work it was. The young turks LONG for more work. The rest treat the patrons like they’ve interrupted an important task. The rest have convinced themselves (and maybe they really believe) that what they do is important. They are sure that they are the torchbearers- but the flame has been dying for a long time now. Most of their job duties are JUSTIFYING their job’s existence- and they’re ok with that because they are IMPORTANT.

That is what I meant. Also, I am speaking only to public libraries.

Librarian Twitter Army

2011-05-07T12:37:00.005-05:00

Ok,

I'm trying to generate a Librarian Twitter Army. This would be for information and reference professionals (and willing and qualified amateurs?) who are on twitter and would like to take the time to offer reference help via the tweety box. Unfortunately, I chose the name @LibTwitArmy without even thinking. Now twitter is acting up and it won't let me change it to @librarianarmy- which I intend to do as soon as allowed.

I'm asking people to send their questions to @librarianarmy or include #librariantwitterarmy in their tweeted queries.

The point would be to provide links and references to people in need. This could maybe be a resource for people involved in the Arab Spring or Green Revolution type movements that need info, or simply homework help and everything in between.

Basically, I envision it this way- the tweet would be sent to @librarianarmy or include the aforementioned hash tag, and the @librarianarmy would retweet it to all followers, who would then answer.

Why? BECAUSE, that's why. Also, because we need to show that librarians have a place on twitter more than just an echo chamber. Plus, maybe it will save some poor soul from using Yahoo Answers. Who's in?

Another Day, Another Problem Solved

2011-05-03T14:47:00.004-05:00

Hey! Yeah, you! Yeah, you schools that are running
out of money, listen up. First, what have you been thinking? Well, whatever it is, it isn't working. Technology and dollars are not the answer. Give me your ear and I can solve your whole tangled mess, but I won't do it now. No, now I will solve one small part of it. Ready? Strap your helmets on, because you're mind might explode without extra external support!

Here we go... are you ready? Get rid of any and all school libraries that are within a walking distance to a public library branch. That's it. Problem solved. That budget is already looking better isn't it? Well, it's not writing it all off
the books. What you need to do is PAY THE PUBLIC LIBRARY 25% of what you are saving. That way they can support the extra use and maybe even a staff member too. Do your teachers need to take a class to the library to research an assignment? Walk them there.

Now, here's the hard part, get your teachers working with the public librarians. Let them know what projects will be done, what subjects there will be a need for. Schedule trips. Trust me, the librarians will be more than glad to help you. They're seeing these kids right after school anyway, so most of them won't be strangers. Also, public libraries will EAT THE NUMBERS UP! It's called synergy. Let's make it happen.

Paid searches (or how Google keeps us from curing cancer)?

2011-04-30T10:55:00.003-05:00

Josh Hadro had a great blog post yesterday entitled "How Much Would You Pay to Search for the Royal Wedding Guest List?" This sparked what was going to be a little comment, but turned into a small rant. I'm not even sure if I believe myself 100%, or agree with myself 100% might be more accurate, but I do know that I definitely feel this way and it makes sense on the surface.

First, isn't paying for search exactly what libraries used to offer patrons- you know, back before the ubiquity of home internet? People were willing to pay for it then, but few, and they dropped it pretty quickly as soon as a free competitor was out there. As it is, people typically refuse to go get something that’s behind a pay-wall unless it’s the only option or they’re already going to subscribe anyway.
Why would search be any different? Unless Google (or some other company, to be fair) has some type of proprietary control over a subject and all related information, free searches will never disappear. Someone will always do it a little cheaper, with a few more ads, etc.

Second, did they quantify the tangential information gleaned during a physical book search- such as finding out a fact that was only slightly related at the time but added to the searchers' overall knowledge with a potential to use later? THIS, I believe, is the benefit of a less direct search.
It's the accidental discovery that we are losing- and it will hurt in the long run. These discoveries change the course of research. They change conclusions we draw. This is why library co-location vs. bookstore grouping makes more sense to me too, from a “for the good of man” kind of way. Do you get that with a targeted search? This is missing, especially if you’re really good at searching. The better search engines get at brining you back what you really want to see, the less there will be this cross pollination of information. I am sad about this.

Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to quantify. When you could it would have to be retrospective and anecdotal, so the data wouldn’t allow you to draw any quality conclusions anyway.

Ebooks by Subscription

2011-04-26T10:41:00.005-05:00

I recently upgraded phones. I now, as you might have guessed from my last micropost, have a smartphone. I noticed that this phone, had I not signed a contract with my wireless provider, would have cost in the neighborhood of $600.
Instead, I paid next to nothing because they know they will recoup all costs over the course of the next couple of years of our relationship. That's great for me and it works for them. (I'm assuming it works for them because they keep on doing it!)

This isn't new. Anyone remember when ISPs did this? I do.
I got a Compaq with a DVDRom and a good chunk of memory for a great discount because I promised to pay Prodigy $25 a month for dial up internet back in the very late 90s. I also dropped Prodigy after a few months and went to Netzero because I was a poor teenager with no concept of credit. It didn't work for them.

However, this got me thinking. Why doesn't some company, such as Amazon with their Kindle, do something like this? Why don't they offer a free Kindle with the agreement to purchase so many e-books/magazines a month from Amazon.com? I mean, is that too much like Columbia House Records giving you a free MP3 player with you purchase 2 albums a month at regular club prices? No, I don't think so. This could be a boon to (e)readership everywhere. Things would get purchased and read that wouldn't be otherwise. The provider would benefit just as much as the phone companies do. I wonder if they just don't need to. I mean, sure THESE GUYS do (or do they still- update your site people) it, but their catalog is limited and suspect (read: crappy). Amazon, Barnes and Noble, I'm looking at you kids to take this to the next level.

What does this have to do with libraries? Well, with better ereaders, people can check out our digital collection more. There.

Travels with the Easter Bunny

2011-04-21T20:08:00.001-05:00

On the road to Houston & blogging from my phone. I feel so 2008!

Happy whatever holiday you celebrate in order to eat your chocolate!

Bloggorhea.. I know, gross. (3 major issues facing libraries in the next 10 years)

2011-04-20T10:56:00.002-05:00

I got asked to list 3 major issues facing libraries in the next 10 years on a job application. I know, that seems more like a secondary interview question. Anyway, here's what I answered.

The most critical issue that will be confronting public libraries in the next
ten years is that of diminishing budgets. While it is true that cities and states are dealing with somewhat unprecedented budget crises, this does not mean that the libraries will be expected to offer a lesser quality of service to their patrons. We must learn to do more with less. We must seek out possible alternative funding sources. There is potential for following an NPR/PBS approach offering memberships with various rewards for those who donate a certain dollar amount on an annual basis, along with regular pledge drive weeks at the library locations. With concerted efforts to do more while relying on local tax revenue less, libraries can place themselves in a position to withstand the booms and busts of the future without less worry.

Another critical issue confronting public libraries in the next 10 years is the issue of Digital Rights Management. In recent days this issue has shown itself
front and center in the form of Harpercollins e-book checkout restrictions. As new media appear there will be problems as the publishers fight to maintain and increase annual profits. This will also present itself as libraries move to streaming video content for their patrons in addition to allowing them to check out films from the library stacks. I believe the future of this lies in institutional subscription services for these media, in much the same way as libraries subscribe to scholarly journals today. Individual libraries and consortia will move away from ownership of materials in these forms to a rental of blocks of materials. This might take the shape of a Bestseller e-book subscription, or an African American fiction collection subscription, or even institutional accounts with Netflix or Dishnetwork's re-launched Blockbuster brand. Nevertheless, change will continue at an ever accelerating pace that libraries must keep up with.

Another critical issue that public libraries face in the next ten years is that of an aging professional staff. There was an idea a few years back about a "Silver Tsunami" that referred to the impending wave of librarian retirements and the lack of qualified professionals to replace them.
Instead, the financial crisis has depleted retirement accounts and this prediction has not come true. Librarians are not retiring, but stay on with plans to do so for the foreseeable future. This leads to the issue of having to constantly teach old dogs new tricks. Never before has the library profession changed so rapidly as it has in the last ten years. This same statement will be true for the next 10 years. The one thing that will not change, however, is much of the libraries' professional staff. What these librarians learned in school, while still valuable, is less and less related to their job duties. To combat this, libraries must focus on constant and vigilant professional training and re-education. Libraries must also make room for the younger generation to fill leadership roles and help steer the library into the future.

Why?... NO, What, then HOW?

2011-04-19T11:10:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, Alison Circle had a great little post on her blog- Bubble Room- over at the Library Journal website. The entry I'm speaking of was To Freeze or To Flash — or Not?

I have blogged my comment to her blog below. It's always nice to know someone else at least has the same ideas that I do... sometimes anyway.

EXACTLY! This falls into the same cart as Second Life library branches and a
massive amount of library programming and marketing. Why should be the first question asked every time. Actually, what should be asked, and then how do we get there.

Unfortunately, a lot of librarians seem to work backward. They get an idea they think is "neat" or "cool" or (god forbid) "hip", and then do it without anyone asking why. This is bad business. It is this type of thinking that is bad for libraries. Instead of showing how "with it" libraries are, they only showcase how out of touch libraries are.

So, until things change, we should always ask WHY when presented with such plans. Then, we should start asking ourselves what it is we want to do and how we can start doing it effectively.

It was LIBRARY WEEK... and you didn't even know it.

2011-04-18T09:15:00.001-05:00

Helping vs Enabling (vs being taken advantage of)

2011-04-09T11:08:00.002-05:00

Ok, so I just had someone come up to me and ask if they could use my phone. Not my cell phone, but my work phone. "Sure," I said... actually I said, "esta bien." Interestingly, I wanted to say, "daijoubu desu," but I didn't. So, then the person hands me a phone number, puts the receiver to their ear, and waits motions for me to dial the number. WHY DID I DO IT?!

I did it because I wasn't sure if this was in the enabling category or the helping category. I mean, what if she wasn't physically able to dial the number... OK, I'm pretty sure (99%) she could. I'm pretty sure I just got taken advantage of and treated like the hired help of the Nouvuea Riche. Besides, even if this person didn't know how, isn't it better to teacher her how to fish and all that jazz? I mean, isn't that why we (librarians) find people the resources but don't write their paper for them?

How does one tell if they are helping versus enabling? Also, is it sometimes better to simply enable than to go through the hassle of teaching? I realize this is situationally dependent, but there should be a GENERAL rule of thumb, right?

Well, here's my best answer. Usually, it's easier and faster to just to the stuff for them. However, this can set a bad precedent. Pretending like you are incapable of what they want you to do, either mentally or physically, could be fun, but the potential for insult is high. Taking the time to teach them can be frustrating and actually provide NO results whatsoever. So, just do it for them and hope it won't be a recurring thing. If it gets to be a common event, then teach. I know it sounds backwards, but it's just the smart thing to do.

I'm back, and Harper Collins is put on Notice.

2011-03-31T09:54:00.003-05:00

Hello. I'm back. I know no one reads this anymore because I abandoned it a long time ago- for all practical purposes. Now, however, I'm back in the public sector, helping people help themselves.

Something that has changed since I've been away is the very real arrival of the e-book. It's not just Netlibrary anymore folks. Patrons have nooks, kindles, IPads, Android based tablets, etc. The efforts to adapt this new tech while I was away has been surprisingly forward thinking and proactive. Also, and this must be said, man I hope this is a fad that will disappear faster than slap-bracelets.

However, there has been a major kink in the works recently (well, since the beginning with some, but recently with Harper Collins) where Harper Collins has decided to adopt and insanely limited number of checkouts per e-book purchased by a library before the library would have to pay for the book again. Just to be clear, I feel this is similar to the publisher creating a book that was meant to fall apart after it had been opened a certain number of times with the aim of forcing you to buy a new one to replace it.

You can read about this EVERYWHERE- like Here or places like these.

What I'm seeing a lot of is people saying that 26 checkouts isn't enough (TRUE) and it would be OK if they raised the number of checkouts to more like 100 (FALSE!). Libraries are not in the market of providing DIVX, no matter how many people predict a similar fate for us as befell Circuit City. We buy books, magazines, DVDs, CDs etc to be used in perpetuity dependent on condition. What makes e-books different? That they don't fall apart? Are we really planning on formats not to change? Are we planning on never weeding them? Well, maybe not if people listen to ME!

First to Harper Collins and your brilliantly simply logo: Businesses that attempt to protect profits/make more money by increasing fees instead of increasing volume are doomed to fail. I'm sorry, but that's not the smart business move. How do you NOT know this?! So here's what you do instead. You offer your complete e-book catalog for an annual subscription price dependent on the size of the library system purchasing from you- direct or through an intermediary. Tell people, here you go, it's a little more expensive, but you get all this stuff for your patrons that you weren't getting before. (And don't try to tell me you don't have a very few e-books that drive the majority of your sales!) Then, let them keep paying you for access as the years go by, adjusting costs accordingly. You might think you're losing money... but you should probably talk to Netflix about that.

Second, to Libraries: Subscribe, subscribe, subscribe! If the fad goes away, stop paying. Until then, increase your holdings dramatically. Maybe pay a little more up front, but less than if you constantly repurchase every 20 checkouts or so.

So, once again I have saved the day and solved the problems. Next stop: Libya.

Awesomely Brilliant Video!

2010-07-19T14:14:00.000-05:00

Tax Dollars at Work

2010-06-17T14:31:00.003-05:00

All data is taken from government sources unless otherwise noted. I think the data is self explanatory, but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I just thought you might find this interesting. My major assumption is that if the government is responsible for X% of a company's revenue, they are also responsible for that same X% of that company's employees. I am interested to find out your thoughts on this data and just how entrenched government spending already is in the private sector.

0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

SL FTE Employees 03/98	SL TOTAL PAYROLL 03/98	AVG SL SALARY 98	SL FTE EMPLOYEES 03/08	SL TOTAL PAYROLL 03/08	AVG SL SALARY 08
14,490,645	$41,453,514,783	$34,329	16,668,184	$67,796,379,659	$48,809

FED FTE Employees 03/98	FED TOTAL PAYROLL 03/98	AVG FED SALARY 98	FED EMPLOYEES 12/08	FED TOTAL PAYROLL 12/08	AVG FED SALARY 08
2,765,214	$10,115,017,910	$43,895	2,949,130	$16,465,304,345	$66,997.27


SL FTE 10 YEAR INCREASE	SL PAYROLL INCREASE	SL AVG SALARY INC.
15.03%	63.55%	42.18%

FED FTE 10 YEAR INCREASE	FED PAYROLL INCREASE	FED AVG SALARY INC.
6.65%	62.78%	52.63%

1998 National Med. Income	2008 National Med. Income	Med Income Increase
$38,233	$52,029	36.08%

USA POPULATION 98	USA POPULATION 08	USA POP INC.
270,298,524	303,824,640	12.40%

USA GOVT EMP % INC.
13.68%


% of GOVT EMP to US POP 98	% of GOVT EMP to US POP 08
6.38%	6.46%

Total of GOVT Contracts to top 100 contractors
$119,600,389,177	http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx
TOTAL Civilian Revenue for top 100 contractors
29,550,990,760
% of total Revenues from GOVT contracts to top 100
80.19%
# of Employees in top 15
1,223,230	http://www.hoovers.com/	http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/science_applications_international_corp
Employees Equal to Percentage of Gov't Rev. for top 15
980,874
Recent Direct/Indirect job
1 to 1.4	http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=F4F0197F8EF787380E0C7AAC224CBEEB&ref=1&src=rss
Jobs (direct and indirect) the GOVT is responsible for
49,435,652
Total 2008 US Workforce
153,966,000
% of Workforce directly/indirectly employed by govt
32.11%	http://data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet;jsessionid=62305485d32d2e173420

Did No One Else Spot This?

2010-03-24T11:04:00.004-05:00

I wrote this a while ago, but recently I have seen this study cited again and again. Someone please explain to me if I'm wrong.

"I was recently directed to the study published in January '09 and the web page titled "New Study: U.S. Ranks Last Among Other Industrialized Nations on Preventable Deaths."
(http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2008/Jan/Measuring-the-Health-of-Nations--Updating-an-Earlier-Analysis.aspx)

I have looked over the study and have some questions.

Not in the study is the fact that 7.8% of Americans have diabetes,
while only 3% of the French population. So these numbers (109 deaths
per 100,000 for the us, 67 per 100k for Frenchies), leave me with a
question.

First, I believe it is important to notice that this is per 100,000 people, not per 100,000 people with these diseases, correct?

If
a higher percentage of Americans suffer from these diseases (
assuming all the other diseases mentioned follow the pattern of
diabetes, but maybe not to the same degree), then it follows rationally
that a higher number of people should die from them, correct?

Ok, if all the numbers follow suite with Diabetes, and 7800 people out of
every 100k have one of these conditions, thent only 109 a year from
that 7800 die,(for ease I'm just using diabetic numbers to represent all sufferers of amenable diseases).

Now, in France, they've got 3000 people out of every 100k that have diabetes, with 67 out of that 300 dying (same rules as above).

So,
correct me if I'm wrong please, about 1.4% of people with diabetes
(again using the diabetes figure for ease) in the US die compared to
2.2% of the French. Right?

So,
shouldn't the conclusion be drawn that it's better to have diabetes in
the US than in France? Or rather that the causes of these diseases
should be addressed, and not that the US needs to adopt European
health care systems? Shouldn't the French want to adopt our system? I mean,
wouldn't our system save another 25 people per 100k per year in France? (If the pattern holds for all mentioned diseases.)

Was
this addressed in the study, and not published in these conclusions?
Can you explain any errors I have made. I realize all of this is
predicated on the assumption that the US has higher rates of all of
these illnesses than the other countries, and that could in fact not be
true, but shouldn't that at least be addressed?"

Is it worth the money?

2010-03-23T14:33:00.002-05:00

I just had a long online chat with my brother concerning my choice to fly to my grandmother's funeral instead of driving. He said it seemed like an unnecessary expense. Ok, this type of thinking something that's been eating at me for a while now. I have a theory that time is money- or more specifically, that the time I'm not being paid for at work is still valuable. Even though this is something I have to do (well, I don't have to, but that's another discussion about must vs. should), I still have to place a value on my time in order to make the best decision, as objectively as I can, for these type of time vs. money problems.

To this end, I have established this equation:
(a*b)-(C-d)>0
a is the value that you establish for your "leisure" time.
b is the number of hours saved by the time saving activity (flying in this example).
C is the cost of the time saving activity (the cost of airplane tickets, parking, etc. in this example).
d is the cost of the original activity.

This equation is to specify the point at which the time saving activty is a better choice than the traditional activity. As you will notice, the other conveniences of the time saving activity- such as no grumpy toddler in the car for several hours, etc.- are not calculated in any way other than time savings.

Now, let's work this example shall we, with math that's simply made for ease.

Let's say I value my leisure time 25% more than my work time- which I get paid $80/hour for (don't worry, it's only for ease of math, not any type of reality here... now I'm sad :( ). That would put my value of my non-work time at $100/hour.
Driving, it would take me 6 hours each way to get to the funeral. Flying, including time at the airport, travel to the airport, etc. will take 6 hours total (generous estimate for ease of calculations). So, I'm saving 6 hours of time valued at $100 each. (100*6)-(C-d)=0

The cost of flying round trip and associated costs is $300. (100*6)-(300-d)=0.

The cost of driving is calculated like this. It's a 700 mile round trip in a car that gets 20 miles per gallon. That means that I will use approximately 35 gallons of gas just on the trip, at an estimated $2.50/gallon. That gives d a value of 87.5. (100*6)-(300-87.5)>0

Is this true? (600)-(212.5)>0 or 387.5>0 TRUE. Flying is the better choice at this value.

Now, what if I was to value my time at $30/hour? well, that would be (180)-212.5>0 FALSE.

Someone who values their time at $30/hour- all other things being equal- should NOT fly in this scenario.

Does this make sense to everyone?

My friend's new blog

2010-02-08T21:46:00.003-06:00

Hey everyone, you should check out my friend's new blog. Let him know what you think of his recommendations.

Follow this link- http://evanspeacefulhome.blogspot.com

Government Impact on the Workforce

2009-11-24T11:35:00.005-06:00

Here is a table that shows the top 15 companies in terms of total $$ awarded in federal contracts from the US government- (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009.aspx) – not including defense spending. For those, check out http://www.taonline.com/securityclearances/defense.asp .

So, what I did was get the total amount of the awarded contract, the 2008 total sales figure, and the total number of employees for each company- usually found through yahoo finance. With this information, I made ONE assumption- That the percentage of overall sales related to government contracts was directly proportional to the number of employees.

This means that if the government grant was 20% of a company’s over all sales, I assume that this is also responsible for employing 20% of that company’s workforce. (Or rather if this money was to disappear, the company would have to lay off a proportional amount of its workers to compensate.)

With that in mind, the US government, via contracts to private companies, is responsible for the employment of 288,250 jobs- roughly the population of Corpus Christi, Texas. Now, think of all the businesses and jobs that must exist because of these employees- grocery stores, gas stations, car dealerships, repair shops, appliance stores… well, basically every business in Corpus Christi. So, let’s say for every 100 of these “government funded” jobs, there are 3 more jobs created to serve and sell to these people. So, that’s another 8,648 jobs. For sake of ease, let’s just say that this brings everything to approximately 300,000 people dependent on these government contracts (I know it’s much more complicated than this, but I’m making a point!) So now we’re in between Pittsburg, PA and Toledo, OH- as a referece.

Let’s move on to the military. There are 1,445,000 active duty members of the armed forces in the US. Keeping with the same figure of 3 jobs per 100, that’s another 43,650 jobs. I won’t count reservists (800k) in these calculations. So, the estimate of the total count of people who rely (directly or indirectly) on the US government for jobs is at 1,788,650.

If we add civilian employees of the federal government- not including the post office-, we are at another 1,800,000, plus (using the same ratio) another 54,000. Now our total estimate is at 3,642,650. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm) This is in between the populations of Chicago and Los Angeles. Keep in mind this still doesn’t cover defense contractors. The post office employs another 765,100, which calls for another 22,953- bringing our total estimate to 4,430,703. The only US city with more people living in its limits in the US is NYC. This is approximately equivalent to the cities of Dallas, San Diego, Philadelphia, and Fresno all wrapped into one.

Taking a ratio of 1.9 of these workers per household, that gives us about 2,331,950 house holds. If we take the average household income of about $50,000/year, this would be responsible for $116,597,500,000 on an annual basis.

That’s $116.6 billion annually. Let’s remember this employs 4.4 million people. Now, think about the current healthcare bills that could cost $1 trillion over 10 years- or 86% per year of the entire estimated income related to all of the government contracts, the USPS, and all branches of military (excluding defense contracts).

Does this seem feasible now? How can the federal government continue to employ so many people? How can it reign in costs when a population the size of the entire state of Louisiana (the 25th most populous state) relies on your growth and spending for their livelihoods?

How has it gotten to this point?

cont'd

2009-10-26T14:42:00.001-05:00

He turns the corner into the room, entering suitcase first to avoid even the smallest doubt that he doesn’t actually have it with him. There is talking; a conversation. His wife is sitting up and smiling. There are no beeps. “Is everything alright?” he asks. “And here must be the daddy,” is the reply. He only now notices that the two nurses in the room are not named Sadie. The one who speaks is a petite dark woman with a mound of tightly curled locks atop her head. She wears purple scrubs and eye shadow to match. Her name is Dawn. Dawn holds out her hand, flashes a big smile, and says, “Congratulations Daddy!” Steve shakes her hand. She pats him on the shoulder.
Another nurse stands in front of the now silent heartbeat monitors. “Everything looks good,” she says. “We’ll go and call your doctor.” This nurse is named Jane. She is tall and broad. Jane intimidates most people until they see her smile and hear her voice; these are always successful at putting new acquaintances at ease. Her scrubs match Dawn’s, but she wears no makeup. Her hair is long and braided tightly down to a point between her shoulder blades. Steve likes these nurses much better. “Do you want me to turn the monitor volume back up? Or we could just monitor it from out in the hall,” Jane says. “It’s fine how it is,” Cheryl says. Jane and Dawn leave the room, shutting the door on their way out. “These are so much better than those other two,” Steve says. His wife nods in agreement. “Did you ask for new people?” “No,” Cheryl replies. “Just the shift change.”

cont'd

2009-10-20T15:55:00.001-05:00

The room is filled with three beeping sounds. The two Sadies leave. “We can monitor from the hall,” commie Sadie says as she heads out the door. Steve moves quickly to Cheryl’s side and grabs her hand- the one without the crimped finger. “Go get the suitcase,” she says. “Ok. Do you want ice chips too? I can get those first.” “No. Just make sure you get the suitcase.” He leaves the room and bolts down the stairwell, skipping as many steps as is prudent.
As he exits the building he checks his pockets in a panic, afraid that his keys are up in the hospital room. His fingers discover the keys and he is quickly at the car, unlocking the door and grabbing the suitcase. It is heavier than he remembers. He shuts the door and reenters the building. He notices things that he missed just moments ago. The smell of sterility mixed with old age fills his nostrils. The walls are bathed in tinted sunlight that produces the effect of overexposing film. There is a general bustle inside the building- wheel chairs, people waiting outside of offices, the cafeteria sounds of dinnertime flatware and conversation over hamburger patties kept warm in a hot water bath, telephones ringing, volunteers offering help to those who look in need. His sense of urgency adds to the feeling that he is only in a dream. The bell of the arriving elevator brings him back to the present. Steve steps quickly to the elevator and sticks the suitcase inside just in time to stop the doors from closing shut. The elevator is empty and no one waits to get in when he strides onto the maternity floor.
The walls here are purple, pastel green and beige. He is reminded of someone trying too hard. Someone, he thinks, actually got paid to design this place. The floor is carpet directly out of the elevator; he can see the seams and knows that it’s the kind of carpet you can buy in squares and stick to the floor. He guesses that would make it easier to deal with all the birthing stains. Are there even such things as birthing stains? He doesn’t know. He walks past the nurses’ desk and neither of the Sadies are in sight; the desk is vacant.

cont'd again

2009-10-19T17:47:00.000-05:00

The second Sadie pulls out a couple of elastic bands; pink and blue Ace bandages. “Sit up please,” she sighs. Her scrubs are a poor man’s Jackson Pollack, and her shirt is just too short for her long torso, so that it reveals her middle every time she moves. She lifts up Cheryl’s shirt, exposing the fully distended bloat. Steve moves to close the door, for privacy, but the first Sadie gets in his way as she strolls back into the room. First Sadie is wheeling a medical equivalent of a coat rack over to the side of the bed. She stands directly between husband and wife, plugs in a black cord to the wall and clamps what looks like a miniature hot crimper on the end of Cheryl’s finger. The junior Sadie, who’s long brown hair is pulled tightly into a pony tail, wraps the two ace bandages around cherry’s pregnancy and says, “These are for the baby; to monitor the baby.” She has an accent like she’s from eastern Europe somewhere. Probably conned some GI into marrying her, Steve thinks. Pinko Stinko Commies.

cont'd

2009-10-15T11:25:00.001-05:00

Her water doesn’t break in the car. It doesn’t even break in the wheelchair at the hospital entrance while he is getting them signed in. In her mind that’s the way it should happen, bit it doesn’t. He is just there for support now. Ice chips, he must not forget ice chips. An orderly wheels her into an elevator and presses 2. There are only 3 buttons to press. “Steve,” she says to her husband who is tapping his feet on the elevator floor. “Steve.” She grabs his hand and the pain hits again. She squeezes and groans. “It’s ok, hon’,” Steve says in a soothing voice. He calms his whole body in an effort to ease his wife’s anxiety. It works.
“Steve,” she says again after the contraction dissipates. “What do you need Cheryl,” he asks, the calm still present in his voice. “Did you bring the suitcase?” “It’s in the car. I’ll get it in a minute.” The doors of the elevator open and the orderly wheels Cheryl out toward a desk. The two nurses behind the desk smile at Cheryl and point the orderly to a room at the end of the hallway. They don’t look or talk to Steve. He doesn’t like them.
The orderly, a dark, bald man of size, sets the brakes on the wheelchair and gingerly helps Cheryl into the bed. Cheryl notices the size of his hands and their unexpected softness and gentility. She lies in the bed wondering when Steve will get the suitcase. She would feel so much better knowing that it was ready and available. One of the nurses from behind the counter enters the room, still ignoring Steve.
The nurse is named Sadie according to the ID she has clipped to her scrubs. Sadie looks over a clip board. She wears neon floral pattern scrubs, sensible white and purple sneakers, and a bobbed and died hairdo that was in need of a touchup at the roots. She pulls pink reading glasses out of the breast pocket and places them on her nose. “You’re not due for 3 more weeks,” she says. “This is probably nothing. We’ll just check you out and probably send you home. Has your water broken? Your mucous plug?” “No,” Cheryl answers. “But my…” “Yeah, probably just false labor,” Sadie says as she walks out of the room. The second nurse, who ID claims her name is also Sadie, enters the rooms and walks silently toward the wardrobe next to the delivery bed. Steve looks at the clock on the wall; it is 5:45 pm.

A Start

2009-10-14T12:17:00.000-05:00

He wears a white button down shirt, sleeves rolled to the elbow, tucked into his khaki slacks, white socks and soft leather shoes. The shoes used to be black, but now had faded to gray after years of neglect. He thinks about shining them every time he passes the elevated kiosks in an airport or an affluent shopping mall, but he never does. He is always in a hurry at those places. He is in a hurry now too.

The suitcase he carries is soft sided, a cheap made-in-china freebie he gets at trade shows. It is full; the harder objects distort the sides and threaten to rip the zipper apart. He doesn’t care, she can bitch him out about it later. He opens the rear driver’s side door of the silver compact car and tosses the bag inside. He holds his hand in mid-air as he thinks over the contents of the bag. Nothing ultra fragile. He pulls his hand back and shuts the door. The dust under the carport swirls with the thrust. He wishes they had a garage. He hates the carport, especially with the dryness of this year. It’s like the goddamned dust bowl all over again. He has no idea what the dustbowl was like. He makes assumptions about history as he pushes his hand through his thinning black hair.

He is nervous as she waddles out of the house. She holds her hands cupped under her protruding belly, supporting the extra weight of the baby. She wears a flowing top, short sleeves bunched with elastic just off her shoulders, the print reminds him of a table cloth for a picnic that took place decades ago, the shirt follows the tangent from the furthest protruding point of her abdomen, but is long enough so that there is no gap before her pink, tapered sweatpants are visible. Her sandals are plastic and shiny; she hasn’t worn them before.

He rushes over and grabs her elbow as the screen door slams shut, rattling for a moment. She shoots him a look to remind him that she’s in no mood to be hurried by him, and he eases off the pace. He hurries back to the car, gets in the driver’s seat and starts up the engine and the air conditioner. He thinks this will help and starts to get back to his role as elbow support and helper, but she released one of her hands from its support position and waives him to keep in the car.

He rolls down the window with a sense of urgency. “You sure,” he asks. She nods her head, put her hand back in its place, pauses and groans, but stays upright and soon resumes her waddling march. He drums on the steering wheel and watches as she moved in front of the car toward the passenger seat. He makes sure the car is in park and places his foot even more forcefully on the brake pedal. Neither of them wants her to be run over right now. When she’s in the right spot, he leans over and opens her door, then hops out and half sprints, awkwardly, a course that follows hers. He helps her lower her body into the seat, attaches the seatbelt like they told him to in the classes, and gently closes her door.

He bolts back to his seat, opting to slide across the hood of the car instead of waste time running around it. He is amazingly successful. He wishes he had filmed it. She is not amused, he could have injured himself. And then what, huh? She pulls down the visor as he gets situated in his seat. He puts the car in reverse. She sees the lumpy suitcase. Yes, she knows she should have packed that suitcase and just let him be.

Questions about a medical study

2009-10-07T20:40:00.002-05:00

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2008/Jan/New-Study--U-S--Ranks-Last-Among-Other-Industrialized-Nations-on-Preventable-Deaths.aspx

OK, read the summary from this link because I have questions about their conclusions.

Not in the study is the fact that 7.8% of Americans have diabetes, while only 3% of the French population. So these numbers (109 deaths per 100,000 for the us, 67 per 100k for Frenchies), leaves me with a question.

First, I believe it is important to notice that this is per 100,000 people, not per 100,000 people with these diseases.

If a higher percentage of Americans suffer from these diseases (I'm assuming all the other diseases mentioned follow the pattern of diabetes, but maybe not to the same degree), then it follows rationally that a higher number of people should die from them, correct?

Ok, if all the numbers follow suite with Diabetes, and 7800 people out of every 100k have one of these conditions, thent only 109 a year from that 7800 die,(in reality it's a higher number than 7800 but for ease I'm just using diabetic numbers).

Now, in France, they've got 3000 people outof every 100k that have diabetes, with 67 out of that 300 dying (same rules as above).

So, correct me if I'm wrong please, about 1.4% of people with diabetes in the US die compared to 2.2% of the French. Right?

So, shouldn't the conclusion be drawn that it's better to have diabetes in the US than in France? Or rather that the causes of these diseases should be addressed, and not that the US needs to adopt european systems? Shouldn't the french want to adopt our system? I mean, wouldn't our system save another 25 people per 100k per year?

Can anyone see this?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm really not getting this.

2009-09-02T13:41:00.002-05:00

Ok, going on the 3% of income per month payment by household (using median household income) - each household would be required to pay $313 monthly.

Hiring a general family doctor- who can also do pediatric work- would cost approx. $135,000/annum. Also, hiring 1/3 of a surgeon and 1/3 of an anesthesiologist (explained later), would cost approximately $154,000/ annum. Also, hiring 3 registered nurses would cost approximately $150,000/annum. The cost of 1/3 of 3 nursed to accompany the surgeon and anesthesiologist would come to another $50,000.

So, total we have $489,000 per year in salary costs.

Previously, I have shown that salary costs are 40.5% of all hospital costs. (http://www.solucient.com/articles/07_MTM_Solucient.pdf ) So, this would put the total cost of operating this doctor’s office (using hospital figures) at $1,207,407/ annum- or $100,617/month.

To maintain the $313 monthly cost, there would need to be 323 households that contribute to this office. The average size of the US household is 2.59 people. Using this, that would mean that this office would support an average of 813 people. Now, if every one of these people went to the doctor every other month that would be an average of fewer than 19 patient visits a day.

These patients would directly employ one general family doctor- he would answer to them directly. These patients would directly employ 3 full time RNs. 3 groups of this size would employ- together, an anesthesiologist, a surgeon, and 3 nurses tied to these doctors.

Likewise, they could share the cost of owning other medical equipment- pooling the remaining 58.5% of the annual budget to accomplish this.

Membership doctors offices. Medical Professionals are employed by the members.

I know this is simplistic here, but I think this could work with roughly these numbers.

What do you guys think?

Some Shirts I Made

2009-08-20T12:25:00.001-05:00

make custom gifts at Zazzle

Wow, I was just testing out how easy this would be the other day for a friend. It's really easy. Amazing.

Summer 2009

2009-06-26T10:28:00.001-05:00

Click here to view these pictures larger

Leadership

2009-04-09T14:05:00.002-05:00

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
You can put the resources in people's hands, but you can't make them connect the question to the answer.
You can outline, step by step, exactly what the truth of the situation is, based on the research and facts, but you can't make them believe you.

I sincerely believe that the easiest way to do something is ~~always~~ most likely the best way to do something. I see people wasting my time and theirs by making things much more difficult than they need to be. This was much more prevalent, of course, in the public sector, but I find it still happens every day in the corporate world.

What is the responsibility of us in the information sector in leading the world to do things more efficiently? Isn't the world better if everyone is more efficient at what they do (excepting criminals of any kind)? This is what the web is for- making things easier. This is what all technology has worked toward since the beginning of time.

If we can help people get more done in less time, why do they still insist on taking more time to get less done? When do we take the reigns and remove their choice for their own benefit?

When do we step in and say, "It's this aspect of your culture, or it's a better quality of life- pick!" ?

And one last thing that's bothered me for a long time-

Why is Coke in a can a 12 oz serving, but in a bottle its an 8 oz serving? It's the same Coke, right?

Prisoners of Biology

2009-03-06T11:15:00.003-06:00

I posted the following over 2.5 years ago. I still haven't found out too much to contradict it.

"OK, I've been thinking about this theory for a little while now. It's not too terribly fleshed out, but I think I've got my mind around the basics. I call it "One Choice Theory on Human Behavior". Here is goes:

Human beings are simply prisoners of biology. Everything we do is dictated by biology, regardless of any rationalizations. We do not choose to draw breath or eat or sleep. Sure, some of the time we think these things are choices, or we choose how to do them, but this is an illusion.

We, as animals, seek to procreate. This is our end goal. It is why we do the things we do. We eat and breathe to provide energy so that we can accomplish social goals in order to win a mate. We earn a living to procure social status and provide for our mate and offspring. This encompasses everything from crime to sport and gossip. They are all done to meet this end, though we rarely acknowledge that this applies to humans as well as the other animals. Nature and evolution have ensured our reproduction by making it and things related to it carry with them pleasure. There is pleasure in reproduction itself, pleasure in providing, in success, in winning, in securing a mate in a stable relationship etc. Even drawing breath has small pleasure, or at least a lack of displeasure. If any of these things were unpleasurable, we would simply not do them and the species would adapt around them or die. This is the trick. We do not actually choose to do any of these things, but the pleasure makes us desire them and we confuse desire for choice. We are simple programmed to do the things that feel good, or perhaps we think things feel good because we have to do them.

So, what is the "One Choice" named in the theory title? Here's the depressing part. The only choice we have (that may or may not be unique to humans, but I doubt it is) is to not do the things that we are programmed to find pleasurable. Our choice lies in our ability to not reproduce, to not eat, participate in social activities, succeed, even breathe. What is the end result of this choice? Simply the pride in knowing that we can conquer our animal natures and actually choose. We are not so hard-wired that we cannot go against our needs. I'm not sure of the biological benefit of this, except of course that the ones who make this choice will be drawn toward each other by the attraction of mutual independence. (Meaning that perhaps, in certain circumstances, this is not a choice either, but another means to the end... more of that later.*) The negative of this choice is that we are denied the very things that give us pleasure.

So, we can remain supplied with pleasurable activities and the positive feelings that arise from them, but know constantly that we are just well-cared-for prisoners, or we can buck the shackles of biology and make the choice to forsake pleasure for the simple pride of knowing that we chose.

Sorry to ruin everyone's day. I'm still working on it and will post more as I figure things out.

Spencer"

* I am more convinced now that this is simply another form of mate selection. Being able to attract people with your nonconformity is apparently a pretty powerful tool in some circles. Perhaps, then, there is even less choice than I thought.

Also, this theory does not address homosexuality and how it relates to the genetic and biological need to procreate. I haven't figured out the right way to phrase that one yet... I guess the best way is to say that every population has outliers.

A Solution to Health Care.

2009-02-18T12:18:00.003-06:00

Let’s say roughly half of the people registered to vote in 2004 (71mm people) think that medical coverage is a right that should be provided by the government. I think this problem can be solved simply by having these people donate to pay for it themselves.

Let’s see how this works- shall we. If each of these people gave $1 a month, that would be $852mm a year. It would take $156 per month from each of these people to raise the $133billion needed to insure the uninsured. In the US there is a median house hold income of $50,233 (2007 figures). Now, assume that each household has 2 people- making it a payment of $312/month/household. If this was taken pre-tax- that would leave hat household with $3,874 gross per month, or 92.5% of their current income.

This is, of course, an overestimation in the percentage of income taken, given that double income households actually make a higher median household income.

Now, if it was pre-taxed (or if the contribution was tax deductible) the household who contributes making the median annual income would pay $6,171 annually in taxes (with no other deductions). Before this contribution they would be paying $6,732. That change actually makes the cost of their annual contribution at $3,183 annually to provide insurance for the uninsured.

This is, of course, average. But, I am assuming that many of those who propose such government services also support progressive tax systems, than a sliding scale can be accommodated. 7.5% of your current income is all it could take to privately accomplish what the government cannot. (Also, please keep in mind that government traditionally does not get the same value per dollar as nonprofit organizations.)

This would raise enough money annually to relieve the cost of medical school for 953,000 doctors. This figure could also employ 532,000 doctors making an average of $250,000 a year.

Salary is 40.5% of hospital costs (http://www.solucient.com/articles/07_MTM_Solucient.pdf ). Let’s use Philadelphia’s Presbyterian Medical Center’s number of employees of 1350 for an example. (http://westphillydata.library.upenn.edu/west%20philly%20data%20top%2020%20businesss%20by%20employees.htm ) Now, if EVERY employee was a doctor making an average salary used above, the annual hospital costs of labor would be $337,500,000. Using this as 40.5% of hospital costs, the total annual cost of that hospital would be $833,333,333.33. When we divide that number into the whole, this money could annually fund 160 hospitals. That’s one hospital in each of the top 160 cities listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population#Incorporated_places_over_100.2C000_population .

Of course, not every employee is a doctor, so this number could radically go up. Also, not every hospital would have this many employees. Now, the cost of managing such a large organization of hospitals would be large, which is why a nonprofit insurance agency with certain requirements for approval would be better.

Am I wrong here? Do my numbers not add up? If this is the case, why don’t the 50% of Americans who want such a system simply make it happen? Remember, these are annual costs, so this would be an ongoing figure. Perhaps there would be another level that would also cover all people contributing.

I guess my question is, why force the other half to foot the bill if they don’t want to when they can easily get it done if they quit complaining about it and just did it on their own. I think if they don’t do it, then it makes their motives suspect. Perhaps they don’t want this health care. Perhaps they really want to force other people to pay. I don’t know.

Please let me know if I’m wrong.

Explanation of #30

2009-02-03T13:49:00.002-06:00

Ok,

Michelle's comment has brought to the forefront a need to explain further number 30 in the previous post.

This statement, as it is, has never really settled well with me whenever I say it. For one thing, it is too blanket for my usual tastes. Two, it's not really what I mean.

So, here it goes; I'll break it down.

"90% of the world is stupid"- Stupid is possibly the wrong word here. I think inept fits better. Also, this is a situation specific claim. Therefore, in any given situation, 90% of people are inept at it. Take, for instance, explaining what you actually mean. I would fall in that 90%.

Now, "the problems arise from the 86% of them that don't know it." I believe this still to be true when one understands the first part of the statement as explained above. In this case, a problem arose from me not knowing how inept I was at explaining what I meant. Now, in this situation, I fall into the 4% of the 90% who can head off any problems by understanding that they are probably going to be in the wrong.

Does that help?

Inspired by a Facebook viral, but more!

2009-01-30T14:59:00.003-06:00

1. I took tennis and bowling in college.

2. I can't speak, read, or write Japanese anymore.

3. I like the way skunks smell.

4. I used to think it was impressive that I had a book still overdue from 1999, but now that I'm fully versed in the ways libraries work, I realize they don't even know they're missing it.

5. Freshly made flour tortillas are, perhaps, the perfect food.

6. I'm closed minded, but I don't think there's a problem with that because I'm right most of the time.

7. I don't notice a lot of things.

8. My son is the greatest human being ever born. This is provable scientifically.

9. I once had an ingrown toenail that is now the stuff of legend... an infamous kind of legend.

10. I like beer.

11. I have 3 dogs, with a total of 11 legs.

12. I participated in high school academic contests with hangovers.

13. I think the easiest way to do something is probably the best way to do something.

14. I play animal crossing... wow that's hard to admit.

15. I am not a good driver. In fact, I wish I never had to drive at all.

16. I'm not a very good writer either.

17. I have an opinion on just about everything, but that's only because I've thought about it already.

18. If there was a profession where people would pay me just to point out their faults (without offering any solutions) I would be the Frank Lloyd Wright of it.

19. I firmly believe that everyone peaks at some point and we shouldn't listen to the doom and gloom warnings of old people.

20. I am, and always have been, bad at spelling.

21. I went several years of my life without owning a vacuum cleaner. Don't worry, we've got one now. If you knew my wife, you would definitely know she married me in spite of my (ex) tendencies to slobbery.

22. My wedding day was HOT! It was good that there was a lot of beer. I think 95% of people there would agree on that.

23. I think my wedding is the best wedding I've ever been to.

24. Oh yeah, I'm pretty arrogant, but that's nothing new to anyone, really, is it?

25. I rarely know what day it is until I look at a calendar, and then I don't know what I've got scheduled for tomorrow.

26. I have attended 7 colleges and universities and have only 2 degrees.

27. I love low scoring baseball games- where every pitch and every swing, stolen base, or error can cost you the game.

28. I have worn cologne before, but I don't as a general rule now.

29. I like what Voltaire had to say, but I can't shake the feeling that if I was sent back in time- with a fluent understanding of period French- I would want to punch him in the face after about 5 minutes of conversation.

30. Not to offend, but I believe that 90% of the world population is stupid, but the problems arise from the 86% of them that don't know it.

Just a warning

2008-12-26T10:55:00.002-06:00

It is slow and nuanced. It is a weapon of language.

The slippery slope has an invisible tipping point. A is so close to B that it doesn't seem that bad. Next thing you know, you're looking over your shoulder at Z and you realize you are in (alphabetically) uncharted territory.

Watch Yours.

Chavez, Chavez, Chavez

2008-12-08T13:31:00.002-06:00

Chavez seems to have two things that he's got to deal with. How is he going to balance the 36% inflation and the mandatory belt tightening with his bid to become dictator for life?

How is going to blame us for this?

Watch out for this Wiley Fool. A military man knows that a military creates jobs when wars are manufactured. The price of oil goes up when a war is manufactured. Powerful leaders tend to stay in power when a war is manufactured.

My guess? Civil war, or close- using troops to aid his buddy in Bolivia. He (hopefully) won't move into Columbia, but he doesn't need to in order to solidify his power and squelch the opposition back home!

Wanderlust

2008-12-05T09:56:00.003-06:00

You know those Southwest Airlines commercials that ask you, "Wanna get away?" Well, yes. Generally I do. It's not that I don't like Texas. I really, really, do. I just want to get away. It's not my fault, anyway. It's genetic.

As a kid, I lived in five different houses before I started Kindergarten. That house lasted until the end of 3rd grade (why do Canadians say grade 3?). Then, there was a whirlwind of moving inbetween my 8th birthday (spent on a plane crossing the international date line, if I remember correctly) and my 12th birthday. There were really too many homes, and flights, and countries, and cities, and adventures to count here. Sure, there were some 4 month stays here and there, but that was about it. Then I settled down in La Porte for 6 whole years. Then, right after graduation, left and began again- though spending most of the next few year somwhere in Texas.

In college, my now wife and I, lived in the same place for a few years, but I got away to Japan for a semester. Now, we've been where we are in the metroplex for a while, and I'm feeling the urge.

I keep telling myself that I just haven't found the right place yet, but I've seen what happens when people never do. My dad's still got it bad, but is too physically limited to act on it. Biology has forced him to one place.

I don't want my son to get what I call "the disease" but I want to move. I feel like I need to move. I need to find a place I can stay. The problem is, I'm not sure what that will take.

John Irving

2008-11-17T11:53:00.002-06:00

Do you ever come across someone who is so good at something that it makes you realize how awful you would be at it? A person who just raised the bar so high that no matter how much you practice your Fosbury impersonation, you know you'll never pass over it?

John Irving is like that to me. I get a story in my head, and then I read one of his books and realize how much better the story would be in J.I. penned it. Then I get sad. Susanna Clarke also had this effect on me, albeit her repertoire is much more limited than Mr. Irving's.

I guess it's much like when I used to think I could play baseball well, until I played with people who could actually play well. Sure I tried to get better. I still love the game, and I can hit the hell out of a pitching machine, but I know if I took the field with someone with real talent, I would be tempted to put my bat back in the hall closet where it now resides full time.

Currently I am reading A Son of the Circus. Half way through and I think that every paragraph is as good as it could be, and they are all very good.

So, I guess I should thank John Irving for showing me what can be done with words, and curse him for bringing to light exactly how much better he is than I.

Woman jailed after 'killing' virtual husband

2008-10-23T13:01:00.000-05:00

From Yahoo news

By MARI YAMAGUCHI, Associated Press Writer Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press Writer

TOKYO – A 43-year-old player in a virtual game world became so angry about her sudden divorce from her online husband that she logged on with his password and killed his digital persona, police said Thursday.

The woman, who has been jailed on suspicion of illegally accessing a computer and manipulating electronic data, used his ID and password to log onto the popular interactive game "Maple Story" to carry out the virtual murder in May, a police official in the northern city of Sapporo said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of department policy.

"I was suddenly divorced, without a word of warning. That made me so angry," the official quoted her as telling investigators and admitting the allegations.

The woman, a piano teacher, had not plotted any revenge in the real world, the official said.

She has not yet been formally charged. If convicted, she could face up to five years in prison or a fine up to $5,000.

Players in "Maple Story" create and manipulate digital images called "avatars" that represent themselves, while engaging in relationships, social activities and fighting monsters and other obstacles.

In virtual worlds, players often abandon their inhibitions, engaging in activity online that they would never do in the real world. For instance, sex with strangers is a common activity.

The woman used login information she got from the 33-year-old office worker when their characters were happily married to kill the character. The man complained to police when he discovered that his online avatar was dead.

The woman was arrested Wednesday and taken 620 miles from her home in southern Miyazaki to be detained in Sapporo, where the man lives, the official said.

The police official said he did not know if she was married in the real world.

Bad online behavior is usually handled within the rules set up by online worlds, which can ban miscreants or take away their virtual possessions.

In recent years, virtual lives have had consequences in the real world.

When bad deeds lead to criminal charges, prosecutors have found a real-world activity to cite — as in this case, in which the woman was charged with inappropriate computer access.

In August, a woman was charged in Delaware with plotting the real-life abduction of a boyfriend she met through the virtual reality Web site "Second Life."

In Tokyo, a 16-year-old boy was charged with stealing the ID and password from a fellow player of an online game in order to swindle virtual currency worth $360,000.

Virtual games are popular in Japan, and "Second Life" has drawn a fair number of Japanese participants. They rank third by nationality among users, after Americans and Brazilians.

Personal Thinker

2008-09-04T12:42:00.003-05:00

Hello everyone. I've started a new company called Personal Thinker. It's a problem solving consulting company. Currently, we are open to pro bono work in order to build our reputation. We are also interested in other innovative thinkers to join our ranks as partners in the venture. Don't worry, no money is required to buy in, only the willingness to lend your opinions and thoughts to problems that offer no immediate payout.

Legacies

2008-08-26T10:59:00.000-05:00

Today is my son’s first birthday. This, of course, has forced me to take pause and evaluate the state of the world, and what I can do to improve it. Going around (and around) in my head is the only realistic thing I can do to change the world for the better- I must develop and record a complete secular moral code.

I have come, firmly, to the conclusion that morality without religion is no only possible, but necessary in order to positively advance global society. We have laws, yes, but these should not be confused with this concept of secular morality. Laws regulate the transactions between people and/or the state. Secular morality isn’t this. The rub comes in defining this morality. It could too easily degenerate into a monologue on the “World According to Spencer.” This brings rise to the first rule of secular morality- all statements included in the moral code must be objectively and logically reasoned.

The lack of logic in religious morality is, simply stated, unacceptable. However, the fact that these moral codes have been collected, written down, and preached, has allowed them to sustain for millennia. These, combined with the promise of an afterlife, are advantages that secular morality must address. It cannot address, due to its very nature, issues of afterlife; but secular morality can be collected, transcribed, and preached. This, I have concluded, is what MUST be done. This will be our legacy, our gift to future generations.

This is a movement. It is a revolution against subjective moral codes.

This Friday

2008-07-01T21:45:00.003-05:00

So, I was reading a blog post from my previouse place of employment and it got me thinking again about the problem I have with "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

Should we celebrate our freedom and values simply because of geographic determinism? Allow me to redefine the term. I don' t mean it this way really. I mean it more as geographic luck. An coincidence of birth. An imaginary boundary established by long forgotten treaties.

Were I not born in Texas would people tell me that I should hold different values or measures of success? If I was birthed a few hundred miles and a river away would I have to proclaim a loyalty to a different belief system? Or could I get away with simply relocating?

Where's the freedom in that? Where is the freedom in that? Where is the freedom in that?!

The Histories

2008-06-22T21:04:00.001-05:00

Yeah, that's right.

2008-06-09T21:24:00.003-05:00

So, I'm not so much of a "shades of gray" kind of guy. Yep, I see most things as black or white, even though it might make things more difficult. This is probably because I am a "slippery slope" kind of guy. Any you know what slope I think is pretty slick, not to mention steep? The cult of personality. Perhaps this is what sent a shiver down my spine this morning when I saw a car magnet bearing a photo likeness of the presumptive Democratic party nominee. Though it's not what I saw, take a look at the image for sale on zazzle .

I know (read "hope") that the Obama camp had anything to do with these items, but one can never be sure. Now, the McCainiacs have their own, and I'm by no way endorsing one party over the other, but I felt I should make mention of this. This is no gray area here.

Oh, and by the way, I have no solutions. I just feel a little creeped out . Anyone else think this isn't a good thing?

Best Mutt

2008-05-21T15:51:00.003-05:00

Ok,

I just have to brag that my dog Rufus (not the scottie) won the "Best Mutt" blue ribbon at Fido Fest 2008 in North Richland Hills. It having been on a Saturday, I realize he could not have won if I was still at the good ol' FWPL (where EVERYONE has to work saturdays... well, everyone that isn't at the big, important locations).

Anyway, there is just one location now, and it's still great. I'm pretty sure they're still looking for another librarian, also. Anyway, I was thinking about how organization impacts every aspect of our lives. Actually, it's more about how data, and how we organize it, leads to success and failure.

Think about it. Your bank account, your bills, your letters, your inbox, your shopping list. It's all about how you gather and organize data that can lift you up or hold you down. Data rules the world. I'm not sure exactly how data helped my dog win the Best Mutt award, but I just type it as I think it.

Some ground rules.

2008-04-29T20:33:00.003-05:00

So,

With my wife and son out of town for a couple of days I've finally been able to accomplish something great! I defeated all levels of sling fire!

Really though, I'm saddened by this and must eat myself back to feeling comfortable with my status as fat guy and not nerd guy. Anyway, the thing that spawned this post occured last night before my family left me.

So there we were, eatin' good in the neighborhood (because it was on my wife's way out of town) when our waitress comes up to the table and takes our drink order. Everything is going fine until she stops and says, "Do you mind if I get to know you a little better?" So I'm thinking that they're actually going to give us a survey before we even get our food, but it's much worse than that. "May I," she continues, "ask you your names?"

Ok, now every instinct in my body wants to scream at the girl "NO YOU MAY NOT. GET ME MY DAMNED DIET COKE!" but instead my wife and I look at each other and shrug. Usually I hate the fact that waitstaff are obligated to give me their name, but now they're asking for mine?! I told my wife that I was going to have business cards printed up to give to waiters and waitresses wherever we go that outline what I consider good service. I won't even speak to them, just hand them the card. They'll take it politely, thinking I'm deaf or something and thus fealing obligated to read it, and they won't know what hit them until after it was over. My wife said that would be rude, but I wonder how it would really impact our dining experiences. It would have the following rules written on it:

1) Do not ever sit down in the booth or at the table with me.

2) Do not tell me your name or ask me how I'm doing.

3) DO NOT ASK ME MY NAME

4) Be a silent server. I don't want to know you're there, I just want your job done.

5) Do not ask me if I need change when I pay with cash.

6) When you tell me the specials, quote prices. I'm not cheap, but I like to know how much I'm spending.

7) I cannot stress rule number 4 too much

It would be titled something like "7 ways to earn a better tip from me"

I know I'm leaving some things out, but the bottom line is I go out to eat to be served, not to make friends. This is what happens when you have people work for tips. Not only should this practice be outlawed, but eateries should realize that they can charge a bit more and pay their staff what they're worth, thus getting better staff who provide better service and attract repeat customers who don't mind spending a little more.

I know people who totally disagree with this, but they are wrong. No gray area here.

Peoples, and what's holding them back.

2008-04-17T14:09:00.003-05:00

I remember, as I was finishing up my undergraduate degree, one of my professors commenting that there was a time when religion was a major force for social and economic progress, but now it might be a weight around the neck of developing nations. (I'm paraphrasing because it's been a while.) The bottom line is he was right. I thought so at the time and I'm more convinced now than ever.

I think this needs no further explanation, but I will just ask anyone who disagrees to look at the prosperity of secular nations as compared to those governed by religious ideals. I think this is true locally as well as on the global scale. Now, I'm not condemning religion. I am only reiterating that separation of church and state is the best idea in the history of government.

My argument, however, is only related to this in the aspect that members of religions identify themselves as members of that specific group. Shiite, Sunni, Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian, Methodist, etc., are all ways people identify themselves. Here are some others that might be familar: republican, democrat, American, white, black, Jew, immigrant, native, Texan, New Yorker, Red Sox fan. I have no problem with these groups, or identifying yourself as being a member of one. No, my problem comes whenever people complain about things done to their people.

Did that make sense? In other words, I think one thing that oppresses a people is the individuals complaining about what is oppressing their people. This isn't the only thing to blame, surely, but it definitely doesn't help. Calling on all members of a group to rally around for justice for that group only prevents the members of that group from achieving what they could have otherwise. I feel like I'm rambling, but stay with me. I think I'll be able to get it out soon. Here it goes:

If all members of a group were to strive for what was best for them as individuals I believe this group as a whole would overcome oppression much faster than trying to rally the efforts of the individual to the needs of a group. There are times when the needs of the group and the best actions of the individual coincide, but there are all too often times when the individual sacrifices for the group unnecessarily. The individuals who do focus on themselves first of often berated by members of the group who complain that they "don't give enough back," and are called names and often ostracized. This leads individuals to focus too much on the group and no progress is made.

How often is progress made by a group as opposed to an individual? Please, let me know if you think I'm wrong. All I ask is that you explain your reasons.

Brain Fuzz!

2008-04-14T17:41:00.002-05:00

My brain has been in a fuzz for the past few days. I think it's the changing weather and the changing jobs. These last few weeks have been pretty hectic for me; I feel like I've been running everywhere for no reason whatsoever.

Part of this I blame on American Airlines. They cancled my return flight from Houston. That I wasn't too upset about. Cancellations happen, as everyone now knows. What really peaved me was the quality of the hotel they put me in, the $10 dinner voucher they provided, and their complaint department.
First, the hotel room was nasty. Plain and simple. It wasn't even at the airport, so I had to wake up early to catch a shuttle the next morning. Second, there were no places to eat within safe walking distance from the hotel, so I had to order food in. The only places that accepted the AA voucher had a minimum order of $12 to deliver! Third, I could check in 24 hours in advance via the internet, but they couldn't shoot me an e-mail that they'd canceled my flight?! At least then I could have kept the rental car for another day and not been stranded!

Ok, so I'm leaving the public library life behind on Thursday. I will now be a business librarian and researcher. It will be nice. I'm a little scared, but in a good way. I just hope I can get my brain shaved clean of fuzz before that happens!

I'm a copycat

2008-03-29T13:53:00.002-05:00

Ok,

So I copied a friend and put a musical playlist on my blog so that I can force you to listen to music that I like while you read the words that I typed.

How is a Raven Like a Writing Desk?

2008-03-13T16:31:00.004-05:00

I know how a raven is like a writing desk: Neither one of them subsidize your lack of office supplies.

I'm going to quickly list things that I shouldn't have to do for you. Trust me, it's better if I don't.

I should not have to find you a passage to read for your church service, change the text size so you can read it, and delete the source it came from so you can hand it out without that web address.

I should not provide you with staples, paper, tape, scissors, or any other office or school supply that you forgot to bring with you today (and no, the library does not have poster board you can use!).

I should not find you a book of extremely detailed instructions on how to start and operate your specialized (obscure) small business.

I should not have to tell you that you will not get a free X box for clicking on the link.

I should not have to tell you what your password is.
I should not have to tell you how to make a fire, or do anything else on Runescape.

I should not have to proofread your resume, college scholarship essay, homework, grant application or divorce forms (or type them up for you) and make sure the formatting is correct.

I should not have to design your business/event flyer.

I should not have to teach your child math or help him with his homework.

I should not have to tell you what tax forms you need.

I should not have to tell you what divorce forms you need.

There are several other things I am borderline on. These include: show you how to change the layout of your myspace profile. Show you how to upload photos to myspace. Show you how to download music. Show you how to buy something on Ebay. Show you how to sell something on Ebay. Show you how to use Craig's List. Show you how to apply for a job online. And many more.
The reason I am borderline on these is that I know you probably need them and there is no immediate harm in them, but it's the future needs that scare me. If you need an e-mail address to apply for the job, it's pretty certain they're going to expect you to know how to check it. If you are going to sell something on Ebay, are you going to need a paypal account? Then what happens if you can't access that again? Do you see a trend.

What I can do is get you resources to show you how to do these things. They will require learning and time on your part. But then you won't ever have to ask anyone again.

Springing

2008-03-10T11:18:00.005-05:00

So, yesterday I mowed the yard for the first time on '08. Of course this made me sad that the recent snows were the end of winter. Really, though, it made me sad thinking of how many more time's I'll have to mow again before the grass resumes its hibernation.
It's not that I mind tending to the yard work... well, it's not that I mind tending to the yard work nearly as much as I used to. Something about when the grass you're trimming is your own, you don't mind the sweat so much. Is this just me? The mowing isn't what gets me anyway; it's the weed eating. I've purchased 3 weed eaters in 3 years and I haven't liked any of them. Maybe I'll have to bite the bullet and go with gas: environment be damned.

Anyway, this was just to signal that spring has sprung and now things will be different again at work. We're getting a thousand calls a day about help in filing taxes (more than half of which seem to come from really old people wondering about the new rebates. "I haven't filed taxes since 1979," they say, "but I want that $300!"

We're gearing up for summer reading program, which will soon invade everything we do to one level or another. I'll just say right here that I don't get summer reading programs. I just don't. From what I can tell, these programs save money in education by keeping up reading levels during the summer months. Ok, let the ISD pay for it! I'm not a teacher!

Sorry, enough on that. A coworker of mine told me that she saw an article on social networking sites that benefit librarians, but that I probably knew all of them already. I didn't know all of them. Some I had recently discovered, like ning. However, one really caught my eye with a high level of interest. I've got a public page HERE, but it's the private page that really intrigues me. It's like a homepage from yahoo, only better. I can get what i want when I want it, and then share it if I want to with the world! They even call it my universe so I can feel really special. I have a feeling Warren Ellis needs to know about this! He probably already does.

How does this work for libraries? What if small libraries could use this Ginger application as their website? Delivering information on all topics without having to host anything or have any web guru on staff. What could be next?

Ok, so maybe that won't work for most places. But how about THIS vision of the library of the future: Everything is labeled with rfid tags and stored in no particular order. The stacks are open for browsing, but most browsing is done via virtual 3d model. In fact, when a book is searched for, instead of giving a Dewey call number the computer screen pops up a read blip on the 3D library projection, with directions of exactly where to find this book on the shelf. No more missing books. No more need for accurate shelving. Digital browsing (perhaps even mechanical pickers that grab books from their locations and deliver them to you), all from your hand held device! Now, the downside (?) is that when it's overdue they can track the book's tag to that spot under your bed where you lost it and send the pickers on a black ops mission to your house for timely recovery.

You might want to arm yourself in defense. These pickers can get pretty mean.

Blog of Controversy!

2008-03-01T11:08:00.003-06:00

It first became evident to me in “library school”, and now it is ever-present in my professional life. I must admit I feel like somewhat of a traitor and whistleblower in telling everyone about this, but here it goes.

Who can name what the number one duty of a librarian is? I can. I bet mine is different than yours. I should warn you: If you don’t want to know the real answer and be forced to face the truth that you have buried deep down so you won’t have to think about it, then you should not continue reading this blog.

The real, honest, and truthful number one duty of a librarian is to ensure that there are librarians and jobs to pay them. Ask any librarian and they are filled with excuses and reasons why their profession is vital to society. Hell, they can probably even regurgitate an argument for why we need to provide “Snakes on a Plane” to our patrons. We protect free speech and access to information. We facilitate education and societal enrichment. We preserve culture for reference and future study. All of these might be true, but it seems more and more to me that they are benevolent side effects to the real aim of the profession.

If all of these were the true reasons, it would be enough and we would also be responsible enough to understand that sacrifices must be made to ensure that we reach our aims. But it’s not. Instead we keep statistics, find ways to inflate them, and get rid of items that don’t facilitate their growth. Programs are held simply to increase the number of bodies that enter the library. Drives are held with marketing campaigns to increase membership whether or not the people actually ever come in the doors at all. All of this so we can show how much people like us and use us. All of this to justify our budgets and make sure the money will be there for us next year. All of this to make sure that we can keep on doing these same things in order to keep in getting more numbers in order to keep on requesting more money. Why else is funding and legislation a higher priority of the ALA than intellectual freedom?

Now, the argument can be made that these things are necessary to make sure that money is there enough to allow us to fulfill those “real reasons” I mentioned above. I don’t buy it. If that were the case then the reasons themselves would be argument enough. Why the constantly increasing need for positions and financing? Why all the money spent telling people how great we are? I’ve told you why: Because we want to keep getting paid.

Feel free to tell me how wrong I am; but limit the swearing in your personal insults please.

One small step for man...

2008-02-20T13:37:00.004-06:00

I recently answered a question on one of Woody Evans' blogs with this statement:
"I'm all about growing in leaps and bounds though; any other type of growth is just falling behind at this point for the profession."

Of course this got me to thinking.
For libraries, or perhaps any other profession, how much is wasted in growing incrementally? How many libraries purchased Betamax or Laserdisc media only to regret it sooner rather than later? I personally owned a portable minidisc player... and I'm just now coming to grips with the shame. The world is rife with digital media formats that can no longer be accessed because their technology is dead. So this makes me ask, when should we migrate? The cost of staying current is immense, but is it higher than never changing?

Is it just the fate of libraries to lag behind trends due to cost considerations? Is this what we've learned from 8 tracks and HDDVDs? And on that note, is it worth getting blue ray dvd players until they are as common as the old ones? Otherwise, don't we, by default, limit the patrons we serve to those who can afford the high end technologies?

So, which is better? To take technological risks and hope you guessed right, or to stick to your guns until the technology is so commonplace that your patrons demand it? In my opinion, this is much like everything else: a little mix of both is what is needed. Gamble occasionally on those things that would really provide a benefit (and cross your fingers hoping that others will follow suite), but also wait until other technologies have been thoroughly tested.
But how do we know which ones are worth the gamble? The same way the pros do- research.

And let me wrap up by reminding everyone of one thing: We should use technology to solve problems, not to make things shiny. (this of course, is professionally speaking. Personally, shiny is good enough.)

Tried and True

2008-02-09T11:46:00.000-06:00

I have been looking at this program called Scratch lately, thinking that maybe it is the future of internet based gaming. Games created by users for users. Sounds nice, right? Perhaps this will open gaming in new directions with truly original and fun games that business insiders haven't thought of yet. Does it? No, unfortunately not.

It's made for kids to program with, but the "non programming language savvy" user can find it a lot of fun too. The problem is that the games people are creating are nothing new. Users are copying formats of games they already know. There are many versions of Pong, Brickles, and Mazes instead of fresh ideas. Perhaps the ability to copy and tweak other members projects leads to this, but I must say I'm disappointed. Now, the graphics are limited and the majority of the users are still quite young, but I was hoping for some new ideas in gaming. Where are they?

I might be wrong. There are 7736 projects and I haven't checked them all. Someone show me the way. User generated content is limited to the creativity of the users... what does this say about the future of gaming? Oh well, I guess it only takes a few visionaries to change everything.

Chasing the Almighty Number

2008-01-09T23:12:00.000-06:00

There's been a lot of talk over the past few years (at least) that the book is dead, or dying, or will die, etc. In fact, a recent magazine had a cover that proclaimed that the book is not dead, it's only gone digital. It was refering to the Kindle (This is another dumb idea that will go the way of the e-book, I don't care what they say at Amazon!). The Fort Worth Star-Telegram recently ran an article claiming that digital media are assisting the decline of the printed page.

I would like to start by saying, "Don't believe the Hype!" The book is not dead, will not be dead, and it's current state of "liveliness" is not attributable to Harry Freakin' Potter! This, however, is another discussion. There is no denying that reading is less popular than it used to be. Honestly, there just were fewer ways to be entertained at one point in time. However, I argue that literacy levels are at an all time high (it should be noted that I have no statistics to back this up... but it sounds right), at least compared to other centuries. Why, then, is the book not the reading material of choice?

Laziness. Growing masses of stupid people. People magazine. There are lots of causes. But one cause that everyone has overlooked is found in the most unexpected of places: Your public and academic libraries.

How, you say? How in the world could institutions synonymous with the protection and preservation of everything books and writing be responsible for their loss of popularity? I will tell you.

Once upon a time libraries had books... and more books... and magazines... and reports... and newspapers... and maybe microfilm and a photocopier. People who liked books would come to the library to check them out, or research in the library from the reference collection. Everyone was happy. Those who didn't like to read, or didn't need to research, stayed away and put their time into other pursuits. One day, however, someone decided that libraries needed to justify their own existence and the budget that this existence mandated.

They needed numbers:
How many people used the building?
How many items checked out?

For both of these, more is better. How do we get more numbers? I know, lets get stuff in here that people want, not what they need. And let's try to attract people who wouldn't normally come here. While we're at it we will justify these new additions in a mission statement of some sort that explains that these items are informational as well. So you got movies. Not just nonfiction movies, or quality movies, but the movies people really want to see (especially people who weren't already using the library). This way numbers would soar, and everyone would say how much they like the library. After all, they are providing for free what companies like blockbuster actually want money for!

This is not so much where academic libraries helped the decline.

These libraries teamed with their public cousins and provided Internet access. This access is not just for research, mind you, or reading e-books (which are all but dead and highly annoying and impractical to use), but for chatting, checking myspace, paying bills, rotten.com, Runescape, etc. This really brought the people out of the woodwork. They can sit in the public library, lie about what they look like and get all hot and bothered while someone at another library types dirty to them. And are there just a few of these computers restricted in use? No, there are as many as the library can afford to meet demand.

Look at the number of people who love the library rise!

Meanwhile, no one stops to think that public Internet access is not synonymous with disseminating information. No one stops to think about the negative effects of the library, of all places, dumbing down what it does in order to have some meaningless numbers to show someone who probably has never even been inside a library!

Where are the books? The good books? Thrown away because they didn't check out as much as the Manga. Crime and Punishment... make way for Dawg the Bounty Hunter's Biography, ON CD! Instead of telling someone that they can find a picture of that tree for their biology project in a field guide, we tell them to do a Google image search for a Crepe Myrtle. Instead of pointing them to a good book for pleasure, we take them to the DVD section and give them something that will kill more than 1.5 hours but less than 2. Why? Because we would get less people in the library if we offered research computers, word processing computers, and books; and anyway, it's their right to be able to attach pictures from their camera phone to an email to this guy they've been chatting to (only, can we upload it for them, because they're no good with the internets).

Shame on us.

We have the responsibility to be cultural leaders, not a place that gets whatever people want to get them in the door. We can carry quality items from every branch of media and do well. We can get good movies, maybe movies they never would have seen otherwise, and people will watch them. We can guide and, yes, limit what the public can use the Internet for and we would have a much better served patron population, albeit slightly smaller. But let's face it, if they don't need what we've got then they don't need to be in a library.

So down with kowtowing to popular demand! Up with leadership!
Who are we to choose what we carry?
Who are we to be cultural leaders?

WE ARE LIBRARIANS, DAMNIT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO!

Short questions...

2007-12-20T18:42:00.000-06:00

What's the deal with teenagers sucking their thumbs? Or teenage boys wearing backpacks meant for little girls? Or people having a cell phone but still asking if they can use my work phone?

Happy Holidays everyone.

Evidence of a change?

2007-12-10T09:31:00.000-06:00

I often wonder if the changes in everyday language usage is intentional. In this case, I don't mean giving a word a different, ironic meaning, but rather changing small words in a traditional phrase or joke to reflect the attitudes of the time. As an example, I was looking at Dogpile's joke of the day (which is very seldom ever funny) when I stumbled across this:

"When is a doctor most annoyed? (When she's out of patients)"

How long ago would it have been (When he's out of patients)? A decade,... more,... less? Is this joke told with a masculine doctor other places? If so, was there a conscious insertion of a female doctor? Does it make it any funnier or less funny? What is the reason for this change? Since we are the subject, when was the last time you heard someone use the word Doctress? Is the verbal separation of a profession by gender left now to the service industry alone? Sure, some people call them all servers, but there are hosts and hostesses and waiters and waitresses. When a woman presents a speech, why don't we call her an oratrix? Apparently, this change has been taking place for a long time,
leading one to think that this is not at all a modern invention to please the masses.

Now, to the real point. What about libraries and librarians? Are there major efforts to stem the stereotypes of matronly old ladies in glasses with their index fingers perpetually pressed to their pursed lips in the universal symbol of silence? Unfortunately, yes, there are. I say unfortunately because these efforts are being devised and planned by librarians, giving them no legitimacy at all. It's like if nerds try to tell you that nerds aren't nerdy anymore. It doesn't work without third party confirmation.

So now I task you (who I'm sure did not think there would be homework involved when you first started reading this) to go to your local library and look at the librarians. If they don't fit the stereotype, tell your friends. Spread the word.

On a slight side note, I do think it's time that the profession began actively reaching out to recruit new and attractive members of the profession. Nothing will help libraries nearly as much as a fresh crop of hot librarians! I shall be the first to call into the ranks of the beautiful people:

This is a message for all the attractive people who ever considered being a librarian. Do it. Sign up and start the hot librarian revolution! Everyone else, please encourage attractive people to study the library and information sciences. Together we can change the stereotype just like Dogpile changed the language of a joke!

As promised: The idiotic and Dangerous Nature of Hugo Chavez

2007-11-30T14:51:00.000-06:00

"Chavez has told public sector employees that their six-hour daily average means they will leave early on Fridays after working normal hours the rest of the week.
He says the move will create 150,000 jobs, and compares his proposal with the current eight-hour workday. 'Those two hours mean getting home earlier, getting to see our children ... and that our children can sleep with the hope that a true fatherland is being built.'"

I thought about just ending the post here... but I figured more explanation was needed.

First, the math: If they are set to work an average of 6 hours a day, but work their regular 8 hours four days a week, doesn't this mean that they are already working 32 hours? And if so, in't that already more than an average of 5 workdays of 6 hours each? So, shouldn't they just take off Friday instead of going home early and earnng comp time? Right? Or am I missing something here? Do you think he just meant that fridays would be a 6 hour day and the workweek would go from 40 hours to 38? But I guess anyone stupid enough to vote to remove term limitations from the constitution will swallow anything!

History will repeat itself, only two countries removed to the north. Juan Peron tried all this twaddle in Arentina. Yes, Peron as in Eva Peron... as is "Don't cry for me Argentina!" Peron. But, also as in "the reason that the economy of Argentina went into the tanks both after both times he was elected into power" Peron's first term quickly became a dictatorship, ending in violence and exile. I'm afraid this is going to be the only way to restore justice to the people of Venezuela... and by justice I mean simply that a man gets what he works for and political affiliation does not earn him more rice and beans.

DOWN WITH DICTATORS!

Apparently I am a Millennial

2007-11-08T12:43:00.000-06:00

I am one of the first Millennials. I'm not quite sure I know what that means. According to what I've read, it means that I kick ass... right? Well, I already knew that! What I'm not so sure about is that it means other people between the ages of 8 and 27 also kick ass. I guess though, if I was to pin my hopes for the future on anyone, I would choose us over the Generation Xers and baby boomers any day of the week, and not just because I'm one of us and (as I just pointed out) I kick ass.

We are also called generation Y. I don't like this name, if only because it ties us to Generation X (also a name I don't like). Really though, I don't like it because I can see the "generation why?" or "generation y?" headlines written by people who think they're ever so clever. Really, though, I just don't like classifying people by birth years. It reminds me way too much of the Chinese Zodiac... where I'm a monkey by the way (which also means that I kick ass!).

I actually rally against some of the things that I'm told are characteristic of my generation. For instance, I do not believe selfishness is a problem. I think it's the only viable solution. I'm also not group oriented. Let me do my job, and you do yours... and let me tell you how to do yours better... and let me get upset whenever you don't do it that way and it fails miserably. Anyway, I wouldn't say all Generation Xers are the same, and not all Baby Boomers refuse to age gracefully. (I still do, however, blame Baby Boomers for almost all social problems present today. What a bunch of whiny babies!!!)

Speaking of babies, my son (Winston Grey Smith) is just over 2and 1/2 months old today, which is why the blogging has died down considerably. There are more planned, so don't worry. In fact, if my lack of blogging caused you any worry at all, you should probably check with someone about how your life is going. Soon I will cover such topics as "noise" "the evils of president hugo chavez" and "despite my current status as a member, why I don't like the ALA."

Sorry this one wasn't very library-ish, but the new one's will tie in, I promise.

A History(?) of Government Spending

2007-10-08T15:54:00.000-05:00

I'm borrowing information for this blog. After you read this, which you should, think over the last line, and then remember that my explanation is one of growing laziness. We let people know that they didn't have to do as much as they thought they did, and they liked it! It's like when I came home from school with the first "C" I'd ever gotten (8th grade algebra- I still think homework shouldn't count as a grade!) and didn't get in trouble for it. I never worked hard to get an "A" again in high school.

By the way, let me formally state here that I think high school should become an accepted compound word, and I should be able to spell it "highschool" if I so choose.

Anyway, read on about the history(?) of government spending.

"Government Spending

by Gordon Tullock

In most countries government spending has grown quite rapidly in recent decades. Chart 1 shows U.S. federal spending as a percentage of gross national product from 1790 to 1990. Chart 2 shows Sweden's central government expenditures as a percent of GNP. Although not many countries have such long data series, these countries apparently are typical. As the charts show, the central government's share of the economy was remarkably stable for nearly 150 years but grew quite rapidly throughout the latter two-thirds of the 20th century.

Chart 1. U.S. Government Spending
Enlarge in new window

Chart 2. Swedish Government Spending
Enlarge in new window

In the past, government spending increased during wars and then typically took some time to fall back to its previous level. Because the effects of World War I were not totally gone by 1929, the line for the United States from 1790 to 1929 has a very slight upward slant. But in the second quarter of the twentieth century, government spending began a rapid and steady increase. While economists and political scientists have offered many theories about what determines the level of government spending, there really is no known explanation for either part of this historical record.

The data contradict several prominent economic theories about why government spending as a percent of GNP grows. One such theory is presented by British economists Alan Peacock and Jack Wiseman, who suggest a "ratchet effect." If a war, say, raises expenditures, expenditures after the war will not fall all the way back to their prewar level. Thus the name "ratchet effect." This theory cannot explain the long period of stable government expenditures before 1929. Nor can it explain the steady growth since 1953.

The "leviathan" theory holds that governments try to get control of as much of the economy as possible. Obviously, the leviathan theory is inconsistent with the early decades of stable government spending. Moreover, this theory also would imply sharp increases in government spending followed by leveling off when the maximum size of government has been reached. But this is not what we see after 1945. Wagner's law—named after the German economist Adolph Wagner (1835-1917)—states that the growing government share of GNP is simply a result of economic progress. Wagner propounded it in the 1880s. However, the forty years of stability after that time would seem to rule out his theory.

Another theory, propounded by William J. Baumol, is that productivity in the private sector increases, but public-sector productivity stagnates. Therefore, says Baumol, for the government to maintain a suitable level of services per person, government spending must grow as a percent of GNP. Even granting his view of relative efficiency, Baumol's theory certainly does not explain the nongrowth of government spending before 1929. Indeed, all theories of growth to date fail to explain either the many early decades of stable government spending or the growth of government spending after 1953—or both.

The relatively smooth growth of government after 1953 is particularly hard to explain. We would anticipate that if the government took on new responsibilities, government spending would rise sharply and then stay level after these responsibilities had been fully absorbed. But in fact, spending did not rise sharply, nor did it level off.

Considering what governments spend money on may help. Government spending on so-called public goods, national defense and police, for example, is sometimes blamed. But American military expenditures have shrunk as a share of the GNP—from 13.8 percent in 1953 to 6.3 percent in 1988. Spending on police is mainly a local expenditure and, at under 1 percent of GNP, is too small in any event. Expenditures on most other public goods have also grown slowly. Of the 1991 federal budget, 43 percent is direct benefit payments to individuals, 14 percent is for interest, and 25 percent is military spending. This leaves only 18 percent for general public goods. Further, two-thirds of the remaining 18 percent is grants to local governments. This leaves only 6 percent for the rest of the federal government. Clearly we must look elsewhere.

It is frequently asserted that the government spends much in helping the poor. Although the government does do so, the bulk of all transfer payments go to people who are relatively well off.

Economists trying to explain government spending have recently attributed it to special interest coalitions lobbying the government to transfer wealth to them. The term economists use to describe such lobbying is "rent-seeking." Rent-seeking certainly has grown. The farm program, for example, did not even exist in 1929. It now absorbs about $30 billion a year. The elaborate water control projects in the West cost the general taxpayer a high multiple of the benefits to the relatively small groups of beneficiaries. Both are the result of rent-seeking.

"Rent-seeking," therefore, may explain the long, more or less steady rise in government spending as a fraction of GNP. Political rules may limit the government's ability to hand out money to more than a few new pressure groups in each session of Congress. If so, we would expect the long, gradual increase in government spending that we observe. It cannot be said, however, that the data prove this particular theory; in fact, it cannot even be said that this particular theory is a very good one. It certainly does not explain the long level period from 1790 to 1929.

The bottom line is that governments have grown in recent decades, that they did not do so earlier, and that economists do not really know why.

About the Author

Gordon Tullock is a professor of law and economies at George Mason University. Together with James M. Buchanan, he pioneered the field of public choice economics.

I Might Actually Pay Myself to Work

2007-10-01T14:43:00.001-05:00

It's true, I might actually pay part of my own salary, isn't that a little silly? Now, I don't live in the city where I work, so my property taxes don't go to paying my salary, but what about my federal income tax that trickles down in the form of grants and other such things?

It's not just librarians either. What about teachers who live in the district where they work? Or firemen, or cops, or environmental investigators, or G-men? Doesn't this seem like a massive hemorrhage of money? Why should someone who's salary is paid for through income tax, have to pay income tax? They (or rather, we) pay our taxes so that someone else can tally them up (and get paid to do it!) and then give them back in the form of wages. Surely it would make more sense to simply not take the money out in the first place, and adjust our wages accordingly.
How hard would it be to discover how much money a government worker is paying themselves and get rid of it. It's a wash. Actually, what should be a zero sum game is not. Am I alone thinking this is extremely inefficient?

In relation to libraries, I'm just wondering how much money could be saved (here to be read as "spent on other expenses") if we take out the cost of this middle man. Unfortunately, I'm not good enough at math (here to be read "I'm much too lazy") to figure it out. But, on the surface, doesn't it seem to just make sense? Anyone?

My Take on Fines (and why we need something better).

2007-09-06T11:44:00.001-05:00

PEOPLE ARE STEALING FROM THE LIBRARY! Everyday, in every library across the world (maybe a little exaggeration there) people steal from the library. Seeing as how you pay for and are a community owner of the library, they are, by extension, stealing from you! Why are you putting up with it?

As I've mentioned in my other post, libraries have fines as a method for ensuring equal access to public materials. If you damage a library item, you have to pay for it. If you lose a library item, you have to pay for it. If you are late bringing a library item back, you have to pay for it... maybe, sometimes, depending on who's working that day and what the item is and how many times you've returned other materials late. Oh yeah, and if you smile or have good bartering or lying skills. Now, I don't think these fines work. Let's examine two reasons why.

First, it is extremely hard to explain to people why they have to pay money when they turned a book in late if no one else wants it. On top of that, often all they had to do to save money was call or go online and renew the item. The theory behind this is very philosophical, and hard to wrap your head around. The practical side of this is just plain silly. These are the fines that I have no problem waiving.

Second, once patrons reach a fine level that prevents them from checking out (or rather they must pay more money than they are willing in order to check out) they simply quit coming to the library to check things out. Someone with a $30 fine will probably just let that sit and nothing will ever come from it until many years later when they need the library again. In these cases, often times this fine is waived due to age and lost information from every new records management system the library has used over this timespan.

Neither one of these are stealing, though the second reason often coincides with library theft. When I did mention stealing before, admittedly much like a local news broadcast will lead with how the dirt on the bottom of your purse could kill you, I was a little misleading. Let me define the theft of which I wrote. This is not the "shrinkage" that retail stores deal with. This is not shoplifting and pocketing of DVDs and Cds that bypass security and simply disappear. Instead, I mean people check out items and never bring them back. Most libraries have those patrons with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of fines for "lost" materials. In my book, whenever someone borrows something and never returns it, they stole it. This is the type of theft that goes on everyday, and no one seems to care!

The only punishment these thieves receive is to limit them from using library materials at home. They can still come in and read our books, sit in our chairs, use our restrooms, check their e-mail on our computers, etc., even though they stole from us and we know it! This is really why fines don't work. We need to treat these people (ok, only those that don't pay for what they've lost. Many of these people will pay or replace the item.) just as if they stuck the DVD in their backpack and bolted out the door. They are theives, plain and simple. Why doesn't anyone see this?!

Oh, Venezuela!

2007-08-13T10:53:00.000-05:00

The people of Venezuela have recently taken steps to pull themselves up to the level of rural, depression era Kentuckians who "were living lives similar to their ancestors, with no indoor plumbing, electricity, telephone service or radio access."

According to the BBC's story, a University in Venezuela is providing library books to the mountainous farming villages via pack mule. If you follow links, you would already know that this is not a novel idea, as the report claims, but a direct theft from Roosevelt's alphabet
legislation.

This isn't the funny part though. The best part is that there are plans to put laptops on the mules! Way to go Venezuela! Fight the image of your land as a third world country by putting computers on mules! I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I have no doubt that is program is backed and promoted as a successful vision by every idiot in charge of the country.

I can't help it, but isn't this putting the cart in front of the... well, mule? If you want internet access, BUILD A BUILDING! Forget delivering new technology via the domesticated animal. If you want to leap into the 21st century, you can't drag big parts of the past with you. If you can afford wireless internet modems in the banana trees (that's not a joke either, read the story!), then you can afford a small hut to put the computer in.

Why do we hate Snitches?

2007-08-09T17:46:00.000-05:00

Well, why do we hate tattle-tales?
It would seem as if they perform a function that benefits all of society. The informer. The stool pigeon. The rat fink. None of these conjure tales of heroism, community service, or courage. Why is that? I feel no differently than most when confronted with these people. Why do I want to punish the kid who comes and tells me that his friend (?) is bypassing our computer reservation system to his advantage? Why do I, deep inside, say "good for him, he beat the system!"

Why, in movies, do we cheer for the bank robber, and loath the coconspirator who prevents the money from falling into the wrong hands?

Libraries, or at least public one's, are rife with such stoolies. Having to deal with them every day, I think I've formulated and answer. Personally, I hate these little snitches because their motivation derives completely from a selfish sense of injustice. They don't tell on someone because they are doing something wrong. They tell on someone because they don't want them to get away with something they got caught for! If they can't do it, no one can. This is the motivation of the tattle tale.

There is also the motivation of reward. They think if they inform then they will be rewarded. Often this is the case. I'm not sure how I feel about these people. I think I can understand this a little better. This, however, is not the motivating factor behind the library tattler. The problem with these tattlers is that the temptation, once a level of trust is established, can lead directly to unfounded accusations.

If I were to waive fines for those who told me of rule infractions, I know that it would take no time at all for lies to be told for personal gain.

Maybe, just maybe, this is the underlying feeling in society when it comes to informers. Either they are selfish crybabies who don't want anyone to have fun if they can't, or they are lying cheats who will make you look bad for a buck.

Now that I've pegged down my view of the problem... anyone got a solution?

The G.A.P. is back!

2007-08-01T11:36:00.001-05:00

The Great Ape Press is back with a new look. In fact, I'm putting out an open call for anyone who thinks they can design a better one to send it to me. I won't pay you... but I will be appreciative!

Also, send them your stuff. They can be contacted at greatapepress@hotmail.com

What a Great Show

2007-07-31T10:05:00.001-05:00

I got this new phone a little while back, and I've been bragging about it ever since. Now, it's not an I-phone or anything, but it was completely free to me and it does a lot more stuff than my old one. One of the great features is that it has MP3 capabilities in conjunction with a Micro SD card slot. What does this mean? It means that I can listen to my phone. Nothing too terribly new, I know, but I just finished using it to listen to the greatest radio program of all time whilst getting my morning work done.

For those of you who haven't yet experienced This American Life... I cannot explain what you are missing. Enlightenment awaits you, don't let it down. I know it won't be too long before you're subscribing to the weekly free podcast because you have to work on Saturdays at noon.

Anyway, my point is that TAL and my new phone are like chocolate and peanut butter (for those of you who don't know, I believe this is man's greatest accomplishment... ever!)

I'm really hoping that my library gets the show on DVD!

I've been successfully saddened

2007-07-28T15:18:00.000-05:00

Warren Ellis's latest blog post includes a picture that makes me cry on the inside. I can only hope that these people were paid, and paid well, for this.

I would like to spend time explaining the reasons why people who do this type of thing depress me (like they are living in a fantasy world in order to escape the harsh realities of their existence, and that it's all one big lie, etc.), but I'm almost too sad to go on...

Libraries of the FUTURE...FUTure...Future...future

2007-07-26T14:01:00.000-05:00

I would just like to say that Olive Software is awesome. I have no idea what it costs, but it can singlehandedly transfer a brick and mortar library into an online oasis of information. The way it translates into XML is so brilliant that I cannot possible understand how it's done.
It can create immediate online content out of archived materials, fresh from the printer newsletters, and anything else you can imagine. What if that archive of transcribed oral histories could be key word searchable? Or the hard copies of computer files that no one can access due to outdated formats? I'm sure you can all think of great applications for this...

Wait a second, I am not selling this, I promise. I just don't know of anything else that does exactly what this does. If you know of any, please tell me.

Oh yeah, the answer to the BLOG of TRIVIA is... the item pictured is the first working transitor, manufactured by Bell Labs in 1947. Pat yourselves on the back if you knew that already.

Tag, you're it!

2007-07-24T09:52:00.002-05:00

In response to a fellow librarian blogger... I have set the challenge of discovering what makes the item pictured here so special? What is it and why is it special? Tell me and you'll win the pride of knowing that you knew it.

Soon to be different.

2007-07-21T13:24:00.000-05:00

My wife, when I told her what the last blog was about, said (and I'm paraphrasing now)"Don't you want to write a blog about how impending fatherhood is crushing down on you?" I asked what would happen if that was all I put in the blog... She said she would kick me. She doesn't lie about kicking people, so I decided I better add to the blog.
Last night I helped out at the midnight release part for Harry Potter: Book Number 7. Personally I think this would have been a better title, mainly because I think it's easier to sort series on the shelf whenever they are simply numbered... none of those crazy alphabetical SNAFUs to deal with. Anyway, I thought about my child (due after the first week of September) quite a bit last night during the event.

This is going to sound really bad, so I'm warning you all now.

I hoped that my kid (of unknown gender) wasn't like many of the kids there. I want my kid to read, to be a reader, but not to the fanatical level of some of the people there. There were normal people, sure, but the ones that really stick out were the dorks, nerds, geeks, and... well, you get the point. It wasn't just the kids either, the parents and staff were just as bad. MODERATION is the key in all aspects, and dorkiness something that requires constant vigilance and dedication to moderation. I guess I'm saying that the thing I'm most worried about when it comes to being a new father is that I really don't want my kid to be a dork. I don't want them to be someone that I wouldn't like now if I met them on the street.
I know that people say, "You're going to love them no matter what, because they're yours," but I want to like them too. This might be a common fear, but it's one I have nonetheless. There, I have blogged about impending fatherhood and my fear that my child will be someone I would have made fun of if we were contemporaries.

Tragedy of the Library

2007-07-18T17:22:00.001-05:00

So, the water was shut off at work yesterday for about four hours. Those hours weren't so bad for me because I didn't have to "go," but I know what it must have been like for those who did. This got me to thinking about something I've been fleshing out for a while now. I'm not going to explain the thought process that connects this to the water being out, because I'm not sure I can. To name it, the thought I thought was of how the public library is the perfect example of the modern day Tragedy of the Commons.
For those of you who cannot follow links very well, the Tragedy of the Commons, in a nutshell, is the fate in store for property and resources shared equally by all citizens. In Europe, sometime well before anyone who bathed regularly lived there, cities and towns had grazing land set aside for use by everyone. Because anyone could use it, and everyone shared the burden of price but not the rewards of the sale, those to whom it was most profitable grazed cattle with abandon. In other words, they didn't pay for it so they didn't care. Today, it is not the grass that is being treated with disrespect, instead it is information.
Sure, everyone pays for the library. I'm going to ballpark a figure of a couple of dollars a year for this cost, and that's a pretty generous guess. For this paltry sum, everyone has access to free movies, books, music, databases, internet access, air conditioning, heat, restrooms (there, that's how it's connected!!!), chairs, newspapers, help, and someone to talk to (not to mention in-house entertainment, education, default babysitting, and historical preservation). However, since the cost is so low in exchange for the return, those who need it most use it most, and no one values it.
To combat this, libraries generated fines and fees to minimize and punish abuse. The current trend in libraries, however, is to do away with those mean ol' fines (which, honestly, weren't that effective anyway). With every fine amnesty day, the library damns itself to the muddy ruins of the commons. My previous blog about DVDs illustrates this point clearly. Why should someone be careful when handling something if it's owned by the library? Regardless of what you're thinking right now about how you don't think that way (and I know you are), others DO, consciously or not. This, not to be too redundant, is actually what ensures the tragedy of the commons.
This is also why libraries draw the freaks and outcasts of society (plus the homeless), but that's another blog.

Sorry, This One's Not Really Library Related

2007-07-10T22:19:00.000-05:00

I have no idea why Doraemon is offering this well known phrase of customer service, but it was the best image I could think of to illustrate this blog. I want to talk (type?) for a little bit about what motivates people to do their jobs. That's not really it though... I want to talk about what should motivate people to do their jobs well.

I was at a team building class a few days ago, mainly because I got paid for it, but also to learn a little bit more about effective management. During the class, a member of the group regales us with an anecdote about how he gave great customer service to someone who, unknown to him, was in a position of great influence. Long story short, the moral was: "Always give good customer service, because you never know who you might be serving." I think this is a horrible way to think and a horrible thing to teach people.

You should always provide the best customer service, that is true. My argument is that FEAR should not be the motivator. This is the idea behind secret shoppers. I have no problem with the library using secret shoppers to gague the true level of customer service, but I do have a problem when they tell us to always give great service because it could be the secret shopper. I don't care if it's the mayor, assistant city manager, director, or resident of the local shelter; I give the same level of service to everyone. I don't do it because I'm afraid word might get back to my boss that I did a subpar job. I do it because it's my job, and I take pride in my work.

I am finding, more and more, as I meet more people that this seems to be an uncommon driving force. It is true that I wouldn't do what I do if they didn't pay me, but since they do I think they're entitled to the best I have to give. I couldn't live with myself if I end the day knowing that I left something on the table... well I could live with myself, I just couldn't sleep well. My question is, where are the others like me?

I know some, I'm friends with them. I work with some of them. I live next door to one. Are the others missing a gene, or lacking that elective class that we all took in highschool called "Work Ethic: How to be Considered Employable by Spencer." Perhaps this is what we need. Education on the importance of work ethic. I've been considering writing a book lately for managers with hiring duties on how to spot employees that have it... that one's still kicking around in the old noodle. Seriously though, think about how different things would be if we found a way to identify people with such work ethic and weed the others out of the workplace... or better yet, instill this value in everyone before they get into the workforce!

It makes me wonder what those people that just don't seem to care tell themselves at night... or if they think about it at all. Now, I've had crappy jobs. I used to make bathtubs for trailer houses, I waited tables, I bussed tables, I made fried chicken for PopEyes, I've sifted through garbage to find accidentally discarded forks... anyway, my point is, I didn't want to be there most of the time, but I made a deal with them that my time was their's in exchange for a predetermined amount of money and a few stipulations. Once the deal was struck, nothing made me stay with it. I had no contract. I just lived up to my word.

I know I'm not really special in this respect, and I didn't mean to imply so. I could have used other people as examples; it's just that I'm most familiar with myself. I'm just wanting to offer this advice to those out there who wonder why they don't get ahead, or pay raises, or praise, or anything. Regardless of how well you think you do your job, look at what motivates you to do it. Do you work out of fear of being fired, or fear of anything really? Or do you do it well because of pride and work ethic? I'm going to bet, if you look at it honestly, you probably do it out of fear. If not, you have a horrible boss and should quit right after you get another job lined up.

Sorry that this wasn't about the library. It's just my two cents this time.

The Problem with DVDs.

2007-07-05T09:06:00.000-05:00

I was watching Apocalypto last night on a copy that I had checked out from the library, after months spent on the waiting list. Everything is fine, no skips or jumps, until 1 hour and 8 minutes (+/-) into the movie. Then, the DVD stalls, skips ahead 1 minute, stalls again, skips ahead 20 minutes, stalls again, and skips ahead another 30 minutes. This process took about 30 seconds. Luckily, I was able to remove the disc, clean it, and finish watching to movie without any more problems. This is not always the case.
DVDs are too sensitive in their current form to provide a shelf life that justifies their cost to the library. Sure, they check out exponentially more times than most books, but only if they find a way to escape the scratches. A library with, many times a day, check out a DVD that cannot function fully and properly. Would they check out a book that is missing pages? Or completely water damaged? No. The difference is that library staff can much more easily spot books and other media that are damaged, whereas detecting damaged DVDs is more art than science. Also, it seems as if patrons have come to expect nothing more from their library (beggars can't be choosers?) and fail to inform staff of inferior products and services. Again, they don't take this same course with books. What makes DVDs so different?
First of all, patrons probably understand the fragile nature of DVDs much better than they do of books. I'm sure they own many DVDs scratched beyond playability. Also, libraries can purchase books with special bindings intended to put up with wear and tear of library use. Library format DVDs (to the best of my knowledge) do not exist. Perhaps the material used to make scratch resistant glasses should be employed to make scratch resistant DVDs. This would make them more expensive, but at $29.99 now, would twice the price for 4 times the life be a bad deal?

The real solution, of course, was murdered by the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I don't want to sound all crazy about works of art belonging to the public and all, but libraries have proven to be an exception. Legally, libraries can reproduce DVDs in order to keep the original copy in the "archives" and circulate the duplicate. If this was the case, as soon as the duplicate is damaged, libraries could throw it away and replace it immediately at very little cost. Though this is legal, it is illegal to even own a machine or software able to bypass the copy protecting encryption (even in the most basic and useless forms)that is standard on nearly every DVD produced. It is actually illegal to even attempt to find out how to perform such a bypass.
What I guess I am saying is... I don't know. I hate it when I can't watch a movie I got from the library because the same format that gives superior picture and sound is too fragile for viable everyday use. It's not a matter of treating them better when you check them out (well, it kind of is... but that's another blog entirely). It's a matter of a library buying something they expect to break, with full knowledge that it won't last long, simply to have it. What a waste of money. Want to read another blog? Go back to the start of this one and replace the "DVD"s with "paperback books."

Two Types of Librarians (Of Which I Have NEVER Met Either)

2007-07-04T16:32:00.000-05:00

In an effort to fully flesh out the classification of the different human elements found in public library service, I have decided to define types as I identify them, leaving the complications associated with establishing an in depth system to the side for a moment.

I decided to start with two types of librarians, which I am lucky enough to only have witnessed at other libraries and never had to work with...

The first group are known (by me) as the SQUATTERS. They want to stay where they are and not change a thing. They have spent years of their hardest work (?) to prepare procedures and a corporate culture that ensures no change is possible. They only thing that will dislodge them is time combined with a concerted effort by their successors. The squatters were not always this way, however. They used to desire to change, to do things their way. At some point, they realized that this isn't all it's cracked up to be, and they found, magically, that the spot they were in at that moment was perfect. They then spend their careers trying to keep it that way. They kill innovation via the informal filibuster. They also know every detail of every policy, either because they wrote it or they don't like it. Ironically, their e-mails can often be identified by extremely ornate backgrounds, fonts, theme music, and other HTML goodies.

Go figure.

The other type to define today are the

IDEALISTS. These folks are either fresh out of library school, or have recently been reintroduced to the public sector. They expect a library to function smoothly, with rational thought at the reason for rules and policy. They are still blind to the reality of their positions as babysitters and movie finders. They are still waiting for the opportunity to enlighten the masses. They wait so long that helping some high school kid do his homework by showing him how an index works actually passes as a victory.

Librarians can remain idealists forever. They can also, after years of fruitless struggle, morph into a squatter. A third option is that they ride the belief that they can make a difference all the way into a management position. This is how they become the nemesis of the squatter. Once in management, they find that they are too busy listening to the complaints of squatters and the ideas of the new idealists to get anything done other than scheduling.

The other option for idealists? Complete burnout and profession change.

They can be identified by the tired smile on their faces and the frustrated tone of their e-mails.

The Inner Workings of the Public Library Part I

2007-07-02T13:22:00.000-05:00

The Life Cycle of a Public Library Book

I have taken it upon myself to detail the life cycle of a public library book in order to form a response to a frequently asked question: "Whach yall do wit dose ode books and stuff?"

If a library book were alive, its point of conception would be what is known as the ordering phase. A librarian is courted by publishers and vendors via trade and advertisement publications. With the gloss of the cover like a twinkle in the eye, the black and white pictures of the book like a lover's promise, the publisher's review like a boastful suitor's speech, the librarian cannot help but fall in love.
(Much like real life, however, the librarian can order a book simply to fill a need. The resulting purchase is usually made after the librarian is met with selection list lacking anything better. In fact, this is much more often the case... at least with library books.)
The next stage is known as processing, or, sometimes, pre-processing. This is the equivalent of a naming ceremony, the confirmation, and the circumcision. The book is stamped with the name of the library to ruin its chances at ever being considered valuable. Thus a promising first edition is forced to serve the public good. A security device is installed, and a sticker to aid location is attached. The book, freshly aware of its place in the library, is now ready for introduction to its public.
From here the book can follow along two very different paths that lead to a shared end. The path of the unpopular book is one of dust and inertia. Occasionally someone will check it out, but not enough to warrant the shelf space it occupies. This book will be "weeded" due to limited number of checkouts. An alternative to this would be that the books inertia carries it in obscurity until someone notices the information it provides is outdated or proven incorrect. Then it is weeded.
The second path is one of extreme popularity. The book actually checks out so much that it needs to be removed from the collection, often before most patrons even know the library owns it. This counterintuitive measure must be taken. Books that check out at a higher than average rate are likely to be damaged through use. Broken spines, loose and missing pages, water (coffee, urine, kool-aid) damage, eaten by a dog (baby), stolen, vandalized, or other forms of destruction await these books. Since most of these titles are ordered in multiples, these books are weeded and often not replaced. Not thanked for their sacrifices, these books disappear quietly, with little more than a gasp caused by their condition as a eulogy.
(I shall not attempt to judge which is the more depressing path. Instead, I will find solace in the fact that books are inanimate objects that possess no feelings or desires whatsoever.)
After the book is weeded, it again finds itself on one of two possible paths. The first path is reserved for books whose condition may allow them further service. These books are typically sold for pennies on the dollar to help fund the library. One final sacrifice for those who didn't already give everything to their duty. You can find these in "Friends of the Library" book sales. If you buy a book that has a library stamp on it, paired with a "withdrawn" stamp, this was its past.
The books that are too broken to sell for two bits are recycled. By recycled, as a matter of remaining truthful, I mean thrown away. These books are usually deposited into black, thick trash bags so that no one sees them during their final journey. For some reason, people can get upset when they discover that their library destroys books. (I believe I have explained enough so that it is understood that the library doesn't destroy books, it simply removes books that have been destroyed.)
The vacant shelf space left by these books must be filled, which brings us back full circle.

2007-06-30T15:46:00.000-05:00

As a librarian, granted a pretty inexperienced one, I have discovered quite a few things about an entrenched bureaucracy recently. More on that later... I think we need a little background info first.

I graduated with my MIS in December of 2006. Since that time (and a little before) I have been working in a large public library system as someone near the bottom of the totem pole in my caste. For those of you who are unaware, the library professions are separated into 5 very segregated classes. While each class definitely has subgroups (which I am currently working on classifying fully)they are so segregated that I shall, from now on, refer to them strictly as castes. They are listed in order of salary, greatest to least.

(the descriptions below are solely stereotypical, and should be treated however you desire)

The top level caste is known as administration. Perhaps they were librarians once, but they are no longer. Not that this is a bad thing. The function of this caste is to herd the other castes toward the goal, or mission, of the library. There are many other, dirty, nasty, sweaty responsibilities too, but since I don't understand almost anything that they do, we shall just leave it with the generalization that they run the library.

Next are the librarians. Members of this caste vary widely in age and responsibility, but share certain characteristics. You can often find them in meetings. They can find you what you need if they want to. This is not to say that members of the other castes are unable to do this, but more along the lines that this is what this caste does. There is also programming, reader advisory, babysitting, etc.; but, mainly these are the information seekers and disseminators. It should be mentioned that, as we speak, this caste is involved in a civil war of sorts. The future of this group hangs in the balance. On one side sits that "old guard" who might not actually want to help you anymore. The information you want to find might exist in a medium that was invented long after they stopped keeping themselves up to date with current trends. They have, rightfully so(?), earned their pensions and want to be left alone (or talk about books with their chronological peers). Pacing up and down the other side of the divide are members of the "cult of technology". These librarians want to overhaul everything so that patrons (that's what libraries call customers and the homeless) can get at everything they need to know without getting out from in front of the public access computer screen. They are the Gods of the Diest's library. They hope to set things in motion, tweaking once in a while, and watch the beauty of library life as it unfolds. "The more the patrons can do for themselves," this group says, "the more time we can spend doing important things." These important things seem to include figuring out other ways for patrons to help themselves. Of course, most librarians fall in between of these two sides, but what group isn't defined by it's extremes?

The third caste is made up of Clerks. Clerks check out your materials, take your fines, complain at you for leaving disc 2 of that platinum special edition DVD in your player when you returned it on time. They are also the ones that, probably, answer the phones when you call, and relate your situations to management. This group can hold a lot of power, and they're not afraid to use it. They, generally, do not help you find something, unless you just returned it, or you never really returned it at all and you're trying to fool them. They don't like things to change, and can often be found explaining how past procedures are better than current ones.

The 4th caste's members are known as paiges. They do not page people. They do shelve books. They shelve the heck out of books. Good paiges make clean, nice and easily navigable libraries. Bad paiges make libraries where nothing can be found, and is often still in the back. They require no special training, education, or experience. I would like to call them the unsung heroes of the library world, but too many of them would be too quick to point this fact out themselves. Smaller library systems do without this caste, adding their duties to those of the clerks, or subsisting with work performed by the next, and final, caste.

Finally, there are the volunteers. There are two main types, both of which should be on the endangered species list. The first type is court ordered. These are people who have to perform some sort of community service, and would rather work indoors at the library than scraping gum off of toilet stalls at the rec, center. The second type are far more uncommon, much more rare than anything you can order at your favorite steakhouse. These are the volunteers who are actually volunteering their time, not giving it in exchange for something else. Volunteers can be amazing or horrible. They can save you money, or waste your time, do the things no one else will, or do nothing much at all. They are the great gamble in the library, or they would be if they cost anything.

This is the underlying nature of the society of public libraries. The constant push and pull between these groups, caused somewhat by the extreme, nearly impenetrable, caste system, has led to the state of public libraries today. I'm sure I'm missing whole groups of people who will feel extremely left out and offended by the fact that I don't realize that the library wouldn't function without them.

Soon I will enlighten you on the way that libraries actually work (or rather how the interactions between these caste members and the public allow the library to float along with no end in sight.)

Print Page

What You Already Know

New Thinglink Uses (probably not new, but you know).

I don't understand "tax the rich" rhetoric

Amazon+Netflix+Internet = Libraries' Destruction?

Boys don't read... crappy books.

Libraries ARE NOT FREE! STOP LYING!

Fun with Figures

Member, or MemberPlus?

Let's Burn the Libraries to the Ground!

The Other Shoe is Dropping

Librarian Twitter Army

Another Day, Another Problem Solved

Paid searches (or how Google keeps us from curing cancer)?

Ebooks by Subscription

Travels with the Easter Bunny

Bloggorhea.. I know, gross. (3 major issues facing libraries in the next 10 years)

Why?... NO, What, then HOW?

It was LIBRARY WEEK... and you didn't even know it.

Helping vs Enabling (vs being taken advantage of)

I'm back, and Harper Collins is put on Notice.

Awesomely Brilliant Video!

Tax Dollars at Work

Did No One Else Spot This?

Is it worth the money?

My friend's new blog

Government Impact on the Workforce

cont'd

cont'd

cont'd again

cont'd

A Start

Questions about a medical study

Some Shirts I Made

Summer 2009

Leadership

Prisoners of Biology

A Solution to Health Care.

Explanation of #30

Inspired by a Facebook viral, but more!

Just a warning

Chavez, Chavez, Chavez

Wanderlust

John Irving

Woman jailed after 'killing' virtual husband

From Yahoo news

Personal Thinker

Legacies

This Friday

The Histories

Yeah, that's right.

Best Mutt

Some ground rules.

Peoples, and what's holding them back.

Brain Fuzz!

I'm a copycat

How is a Raven Like a Writing Desk?

Springing

Blog of Controversy!

One small step for man...

Tried and True

Chasing the Almighty Number

Short questions...

Evidence of a change?

As promised: The idiotic and Dangerous Nature of Hugo Chavez

Apparently I am a Millennial

A History(?) of Government Spending

By the way, let me formally state here that I think high school should become an accepted compound word, and I should be able to spell it "highschool" if I so choose.

"Government Spending

About the Author

Further Reading

I Might Actually Pay Myself to Work

My Take on Fines (and why we need something better).

Oh, Venezuela!

Why do we hate Snitches?

The G.A.P. is back!

What a Great Show

I've been successfully saddened

Libraries of the FUTURE...FUTure...Future...future

Tag, you're it!

Soon to be different.