I wish I'd seen this article (courtesy of Bookslut) before I recorded the last show:

Check This Out - The National Review's Dewey Murdock tells you exactly why "Libraries should be a key target of the Patriot Act."

The basic thrust of the article is that terrorists frequent libraries, so libraries need to be on the list of places that federal investigators can actively track them. But lest we forget, terrorists like food, so you'd better get supermarkets and restaurants on there too. I understand that many terrorists like shopping, so you'd better get all retail locations on there too. And I understand that some terrorists like gas in their vehicles and haircuts, so you might want to add gas stations, barbershops and hair salons.

I don't mean to make a mockery of a serious issue, but the argument put forth by Mr. Murdock is backed by evidence that is specious in some cases, almost laughable in others.

"While learning to fly, the Los Angeles Times reported on its front page on September 27, 2001, "Atta used computers at the public library and worked out at a Delray Beach health club."

Uh oh, better add health clubs to the list.

Here's a quote to remind us all about the uphill battle that is librarianship:

""Libraries are not safe places, and the reason for that is there are ideas to be found," Bookman said."

I don't think further comment is necessary, but here's a link to the article from which this progressive statement came, courtesy of LISNews:
DenverPost.com - Sex-education book won't be banned at library in Weld County

Michael Farrelly shares why you should Spend the Winter in Your Library.

"Bundle up the family and get out of the house to a place of education and fun and warm, warm rooms. You can let the little angelic hellions run rampant for a bit while you peruse an art book from Italy, a place where the only snow is for skiing and cold means needing a light jacket."

Anyone happen to catch Boston Public tonight?

Interesting storyline: The Assistant Principal tries to track down porn sites that kids are checking out on the library's computers. In the process, he discovers that someone has been visiting Al-Qaeda's website. Under the auspice of doing the right thing to protect his students, the Principal contacts the FBI, who arrive at the school prepared to investigate. With predictable racial profiling, the lone Arab male student is interrogated and admits to visiting the site. He speaks credibly of his desire to learn about his culture and why his people have so much hatred for the USA.

It's not long before the word gets out and the kids begin their own brand of terror on the boy and his sister. By the end, the father has pulled his kids out of the school and the Principal gives a predictably moving sermon to the student body showing that they are the real terrorists.

I thought it was noteworthy the way they portrayed the FBI's anti-terror investigations as creating more problems than solutions. And of course, I was pleased to see one teacher demonstrate outrage at the privacy violations that would clearly compromise future library usage (Huzzah!).

Following up on my last post, here's a more reasonable (and favorable) occupational outlook analysis in a law.com article entitled Library Economics 101:

"Staff costs include permanent staff, contractors and temporary help that may be called on through the year to assist with particular projects. Although some predicted that desktop access to information would eliminate the need for library staff, just the opposite has proved true. Educated, trained, and experienced staff members are needed more than ever to review and choose electronic products, train users, select content and update intranets, enter and manipulate data in library software, provide sophisticated research services, and handle the many other tasks necessary to operate a high-tech library."

Link courtesy of ResourceShelf.

About.com's Career Planning section offers an overview of careers in library science this week, culled from the Occupational Outlook Handbook.

Most of the info will be familiar to those of us already inside the profession. This passage, however, should prove alarming:

Employment of librarians is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations over the 2000-10 period. The increasing use of computerized information storage and retrieval systems continues to contribute to slow growth in the demand for librarians. Computerized systems make cataloguing easier, which library technicians now handle. In addition, many libraries are equipped for users to access library computers directly from their homes or offices. These systems allow users to bypass librarians and conduct research on their own.

These last few sentences should confirm all of your worst fears. Users have been "allowed" to bypass librarians for years now, but it's never been the best approach, nor will it be anytime soon. Will anyone ever comprehend this?

At least the host of the Career Planning section seems to have some semblance of a clue: "If you think all librarians wear their hair in buns and walk around in their comfortable shoes saying "shhhh" you've been watching too many movies. Librarians are professionals who are experts at finding all sorts of information and presenting it in a form their clients can utilize."

I'm amazed that almost two months after initiating discussion about the now infamous librarian action figure, the debate goes on.

I felt the need to respond to one of the comments, so excuse my use of this forum to do so.

Here is what was said by someone named Tiare:

"While I respect your offense, I object to you complaining how stereotypical the action figure looks. The action figure was modeled after a 100% real and authentic librarian. If you have any problems with how she looks, please go ahead and talk to Nancy Pearl about her style choices. She really wears spectacles and that is one of her real outfits she chose to wear when molded."

Now I clearly state in the original post, "I'm certainly not offended, just disappointed." I just hate it when people don't read what you've written before they comment on it. That offends me far more than disagreeing with my perspective possibly could.

As far as objecting to my complaining, well, this is my house. I'll complain if I want. Objection overruled.

So what was I "complaining" about anyway? It's not so much that they chose a stereotypically-fashioned librarian to be the model, since that decision makes some degree of sense. [I'm not sure why Tiare felt the need to inform me that Nancy was a "real and authentic" librarian; I made that pretty clear in my post, even mentioning her position. I also really don't care about her personal stylistic choices. That's not the point.] My complaint was that they could have done so much more with the action figure, simply by coupling that archetypal image with a cooler action: the ejectable hair bun rather than the shushing motion.

Nancy is an dynamic, innovative librarian and it would have been funnier (and more action-packed) to let that show (although she doesn't actually have a hair bun as far as I can tell, but what the hell, it's an action figure, not a statue). I just felt that it would have done more for fun AND more for recasting stereotypes. That's it.

Anyway, Nancy will be in the area soon and I'll be sure not to ask her about fashion, contact lenses or action figures.

Warning: This post is so long that I have, for the first time, employed the Extended Entry option. Read on...

There's a thread on Slashdot today that promotes something called the Distributed Library Project. The basic premise is that Bay Area people create accounts and list their collections for other's perusal. If the potential borrower and owner can coordinate times, items can be checked out.

Here's the "What is the DLP?" blurb from the project's site:

"The Distributed Library Project is an experiment in sharing information and building community in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Unfortunately, the traditional library system doesn't do much to foster community. Patrons come and go, but there is very little opportunity to establish relationships with people or groups of people. In fact, if you try to talk with someone holding a book you like - you'll probably get shushed. The Distributed Library Project works in exactly the opposite way, where the very function of the library depends on interaction."

Now of course, you're horrified by the assertion that libraries do little by way of community building, as was I. Fortunately, the Slashdot community agrees.

A few good examples:

1. "While this does seem like a cool project, the very premise is a bit skewed. Libraries used to be quite places, talking was always frowned upon, and the librarian was some old 90 year old hag who cared more about smacking people around than passing on knowledge.

It's often acceptible to socialize in libraries now. There are usually designated quiet portions of the library, but for the most part interaction between patrons is allowed. In fact, larger libraries set up study groups and so forth where interaction is ENCOURAGED among patrons who are interested in a similar topic."

2. "Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but our local library [lib.mn.us] has done a lot for fostering community. My wife has participated in the annual poetry contest and readings at the library. We have gotten to know our library staff, met people and our kids have discovered new materials through the connections that they have made at the library. I won't argue that this program has value, but your average local library is community-run, a center for local civic involvement and community programs and projects. The American Library Association puts community involvement at the heart of it's mission."

3. "That's just nonsense. Yes, you can't go walking up to strangers reading and start a conversation but who wants that anyway? There are many opportunities to get to know your fellow patrons. Our county library system has many activities during the day, evening, and weekends, including book discussion groups (for adults, teens, and parent/child), story time for the younger set (so popular that you have to get a free ticket from the circulation desk the morning of the event to get in), board game night for teens...and more activities I can't remember."

As offensive as I find the assertion that libraries don't foster community, I'm more concerned with the proposition that this project is the solution. First, I'm very skeptical of the use of the term community in this situation. It seems that what would develop from this is a very particular kind of community, focused on a technologically-advantaged population (not to mention media-endowed). This is precisely the kind of service distinction (advantaged/disadvantaged) that we as librarians work so hard to overcome.

Then there are other issues that are typically handled through well-considered policies and the judgment of trained professionals (and the excellent paraprofessionals too!). What happens when the borrower damages the book and the lender turns out to be, um, "associated"? Is the "collection unit" going to make an appearance to demand reparations?

What about the utility of a catalog made by its users? From another comment:

"There's a reason that professional librarians go to graduate school to learn how to do essential "librarian" things like cataloging. Any database of this nature will collapse in on itself and be completely useless without things such as language control [loc.gov]. This is another case where a techie with a really good idea should first consult with a professional librarian before trying to re-invent the wheel."

Privacy also comes to mind as an issue. While libraries are working on this continually, privacy is a mixed blessing when it comes to individual exchanges. Setting up a "meeting" to make a "transaction" sounds a bit sketchy to me. The point is that libraries exist as a safe place for information exchange and yes, community building. Putting the means of exchange into the hands of individuals is a novel idea, but the idea of community that it espouses is entirely out of line with my conception.

I leave you with this comment: "Unfortunately, the traditional lavatory system doesn't do much to foster community. Patrons come and go, but there is very little opportunity to establish relationships with people or groups of people. In fact, if you try to talk with someone using the toilet you like - you'll probably get shushed. The Distributed Lavatory Project works in exactly the opposite way, where the very function of the lavatory depends on interaction."

More on Bibliophilia from the Washington Post: So this is a sex-romp. Or a sex-something. It favors verbs like "diddle" and "swive." And nouns like "merkin."

I want to say to this writer, "What's your point?" Or, "Get a life!" Or even more harsh, "Get out of school!" The verb "diddle" does come to mind here. There's more to this world than "a Barbie doll wearing Band-Aids for bra and panties; a white chess rook against which two shiny golf balls leaned." There is, actually, life.

This is sure to be a must-read:

Bibliophilia by Michael Griffith.

Some excerpts from the San Francisco Gate review:

A librarian stuck in a sexless marriage is deputized to thwart student hanky-panky in the stacks, a man afraid to tell his parents he's gay gets trapped in a chimpanzee cage, and a father literally becomes a pawn in his teenage son's life-size chess game at a county fair. That's just a sampling of what goes on in Michael Griffith's "Bibliophilia," a novella and five stories that are only occasionally credible and always sardonic, clever and beautifully stylized.

In the title novella, for example, Myrtle, the middle-aged librarian/sex policewoman, demands that the real police use a rape kit on a mangled grapefruit in order to prove that a student with a duffel bag filled with fruit and vegetables has been copulating with citrus at the school library.

I can imagine the dialogue:

Student - 'Hey, I don't see a sign that says "No Fruit Copulation in the Library". '

Librarian - 'Doesn't the sign clearly state "No food or drink in the library"?

Student - 'Does it look like I ate the grapefruit?'

Sadly (or perhaps mercifully), only the title story is library-related.

Apparently, a Seattle toymaker has seen fit to make a plastic action figure modeled on the executive director of the Washington Center for the Book, Nancy Pearl:

The Seattle Times: Toymaker finds librarian who's a real doll.

It seems they had a choice between giving the figure a shushing action or an "ejectable hair bun." By selecting the former, there is no doubt they made the wrong choice.

Let's look at it from two angles. First, the fun factor. What could be more entertaining than ejecting body parts! Nobody associates shushing with fun, certainly not the kids at any library I've ever used.

On the other hand, there is the stereotyped librarian image. Bad enough the action figure is dressed in a frumpy blue outfit, bespectacled and all (not to mention the obvious gender element, but I won't go there). Add the shushing action and she's pretty much the archetypal librarian that belies numerous jokes and misconceptions.

An ejectable hair bun was the perfect opportunity to make a symbolic gesture in defiance of that stereotype: "Cast off your hair buns, ladies, and do it with gusto!"

Here's an excerpt from the article in defense of their decision:

"The ejectable hair bun had many technical hurdles to overcome and we thought doing two clichés was over the top," he said. "So, we went with the shushing action. It gives the figure a certain dignity."

A certain dignity? Or a definite blandness?

Pearl predicts that the shushing motion — triggered by a button on the doll's back — will determine "which librarians have a sense of humor." She likes to believe that today's librarians are secure enough in their work that they won't take offense at the old cliché.

Hmmm, I have a sense of humor (weak though it may be). The ejectable hair bun would have been much funnier and less cliché. I'm certainly not offended, just disappointed.

Courtesy of librarian.net.

Someone on one of the GSLIS bulletin boards kindly posted a link to the the new nexgenlib-l group over at Topica. From the list info: "This list is open to the next generation of librarians - those of us who are under 30, of any gender, political persuasion, race, etc., and our friends (those who welcome us into the profession)." There are definitely some over-30 individuals on the list, so all those young-at-heart are encouraged to join in what are proving to be very active discussions.

I was checking in on Michael over at Libraryman and found a post about National Unappreciated Librarian Month. When's National Unemployed Librarian Month, I wonder.

Michael posits a correlation between the "celebration" and this article. I suspect he's wrong though, as the article doesn't even mention librarians. Instead, it attributes higher library traffic to the availability of Internet access for those on the wrong side of the digital divide. Now of course the foresight of librarians is at least partially to thank for this, but there is no such acknowledgement. Nor is there any suggestion that the true greatness of the library is the librarians who help people find their way through this ever-growing electronic information network that we are providing access to. While almost everything this article says is accurate, there is no love whatsoever for the role of the librarian.

The most contentious point may actually be a quote from CLA president Wendy Newman: "Everyone wants to be a good parent and one of the things they see as an act of positive parenting is taking their children to the library." Yeah, if positive means taking their children and leaving them for six hours under the supervision of the librarians until just before closing time. That's good parenting, all right.

And the article concludes: "Libraries are cool again." Apparently, librarians still aren't.