On Fri, 20 May 2011, Todd Puccio wrote:
> Any agency, no matter how well intentioned, will attempt to protect its
> funding by keeping its funder happy.
Thank you for pointing that out, Todd, but, actually, the problem that
deserves discussion is not how and why to avoid public funding but how to
"reform" public funding to prevent manipulation of it.
> In this case, whatever federal government administration is in power at
> the time.
In this case, we should be working to create a government that can carry
out good intentions, and an electorate so cognizant of manipulative
techniques that the *wrong* people cannot take it over.
> I certainly would not want to give any agency (How could it possibly
> really be independent ?) this kind of power.
The real issue is that of "power" itself-- if we could support agencies
(the people running them, actually) that operate from a sense of
critically evaluated accomplishment rather than "power", we could obviate
the fear that you have described.
And, of course, no government entity (including libraries) can or should
be independent of review by constructively critical constituencies, which,
should *be* the government.
> Even our old advocate friend Sandy Berman accused the LC of being biased.
It's really hard to avoid being biased, and even harder to distinguish
bias from honesty, so such criticism, if intended to encourage discussion
and not to flat-out scapegoat, is essential. As for LC in particular, we
need to look at the causes of any perceived biases and how to defuse them,
not just berate the entire system (as some people would actually encourage
us to do).
> In these times of increased financial pressures the mere suggestion that
> something like this would be "a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money" shows
> that he is out of touch with what essential services really need to be
> funded well.
Actually aren't we out of touch with the causes and motivations behind
those aspects of our society that impose "increased financial pressures",
and are we really defining what "essential" means appropriately (e.g.
teaching people and corporations) how to collaborate for the good of
society rather than themselves), and are we really encouraging our elected
politicians to pay attention to the most essential issues, instead of just
being provincial about our demands?
> Funding of education and related libraries will go much further to
> attain these goals in the long run.
Absolutely, but that is no reason not to discuss other ideas as well.
> We should be educating people on how to discover and verify the truth for
> themselves, not treating them like children and merely giving them the
> government approved textbook version.
Again, **absolutely**! The worst fault of government itself is that it
treats people like children, and one solution to its problem (believing
people are children and will always be) and ours (becoming our own
parents) is to fund the government to teach the people how to think
critically on their own.
Cheers!
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon May 23 2011 - 13:48:29 EDT