> Let's not throw the possibility of developing "citizen scholars" out with
the possibility that some persons are too desperate (or enslaved) to study.
Instead, we need to empower as many people as possible to work to alleviate
the desperation.
Agreed, John. I'm in favor of all options--as shown by my interest in the
academic libraries' being accessible to people off campus, "citizen
scholars" included! And, yes, in an era when so many corporations and
professions have gone "Me first!," it is more important than ever for
libraries to help citizens get at the facts.
David
David Rothman
Co-Founder, LibraryCity.org
703-370-6540
@davidrothman
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:42 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011, David H. Rothman wrote:
>
> the truth will generally come out.
>>
>
> Often not in time to save lives (of various sorts and numbers), due to the
> fact that people can be manipulated and frightened if not educated in how to
> think critically ("information literacy"?).
>
> carrying ... books debunking Protocols--which is much better than
>>
>> ignoring it completely, especially when, yes, it is on the Net (e.g.,
>> the version at http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm).
>>
>
> Perhaps here the librarian-solution to obviating accusations of
> prejudicial information-collecting would be to pop a note in each
> debunking-book with a reference to the Net site.
>
>
> And far, far less obnoxious and more credible than a Clinton-style
>> Ministry of Truth (I get full bashing privileges, incidentally--I'm a
>> lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill and Al).
>>
>
> One would certainly hope that the initiation of discussion of
> controversial ideas containing a diversity of approaches (propriety, need,
> funding, control, "power", future potential misuse, etc.) would not hinder
> the consideration for office of the individuals proposing those ideas,
> particularly when the core concept is "truth" rather than self-interest (or
> so we could insist).
>
>
> I can recall talk of "citizen scholars." Yes, that's just the way to think
>> when a patron needs accurate job-related information or is dying of cancer.
>>
>
> Quite true, and that may be exactly how some patrons are thinking.
> Considering the sad state of the professions these days, and their almost
> exclusive interest in the bottom line, one needs to be able to research the
> nature of ones prospective employers (god forbid the economy has been ruined
> to the extent that everyone is forced to enslave themselves in order to
> eat-- how did that happen?) and ones medical symptoms and potential
> treatments.
>
> Let's not throw the possibility of developing "citizen scholars" out with
> the possibility that some persons are too desperate (or enslaved) to study.
> Instead, we need to empower as many people as possible to work to alleviate
> the desperation.
>
> Cheers!
>
> jgm
>
>
> 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 - 18:33:36 EDT