9On Sat, 30 Jul 2011, Joe Hourcle wrote:
> Um ... electorate = people who can vote. Most of 'em don't vote
Perhaps librarians could provide some *active* influence on that issue.
At any rate, it is precisely the fact that most of 'em aren't inspired to
vote that is the principal problem. Can librarians be inspirational?
> most of them don't consider library funding to be the main issue when
> electing delegates.
Considering all voters, there is no "main issue" recognizable, but there
is considerable pressure put on voters to avoid supporting social issues
that affect the entire society positively.
Any time politicians are agitating the electorate to agree to tax cuts
and elimination of services, library funding can be negatively affected.
The main "issues" perhaps 25%+ of the electorate considers *and votes
on* (vs. 35% who don't vote at all) are self-interest and "moral" (i.e.
emotional and religious) issues.
> As for those who have to make the funding decisions, there's a lot of
> issues involved, but the two main deciding factors are:
> 1. benefits for the cost
The society has been put in this position by the manipulative expertise
of a faction that wishes to cripple public services by crippling public
budgets, except to benefit the major industries and the wealthy.
> 2. which groups complain the most / loudest.
It is quite clear that librarians are *not* one of those groups.
> I assume you mean 'outreach' ... when I think 'research and publish', I think
> academic journals, which the majority of the public will never see, and
> especially the elected officials won't.
I actually do mean "research", a sort-of "inreach", wherein librarians
study their own community in order to strengthen it from within.
> Not true. There are plenty of grassroots movements out there to get out
> info about topics.
Unfortunately, those movements distorting info predominate, due to the
electorate having been trained to appreciate sound-bites over substance,
and the fact that substance and distortion cannot be explained in
sound-bites, and the use of emotionally manipulative and fear-mongering
distortion techniques.
> Look for any relevant meetings that the officials who have the budget
> authority might attend. You ask them uncomfortable questions, and
> make sure they look like the enemy.
Precisely what the disruptive factions have been doing much more
successfully that rational people.
> For instance ...
I assume you are making recommendations to librarians, in which case I
certainly agree. I have been involved in politics for ca. 20 years, and I
have learned that public meetings can be irrelevant to back-room
dickering.
Unfortunately there are other people who are much more capable of being
manipulative than librarians, both by disrupting meetings and playing
games outside of meetings.
> The only ones you have to convince are those who affect the budget.
As anyone can see in the current Congressional debates, those who are
affecting the budget with strong-arm, disruptive tactics cannot be
convinced of anything except that they are "right", which, incidentally,
is all they are interested in, budget be hanged.
There are some things librarians can do:
1. Vote.
2. Convince others to vote, and make it easier to get people to the
polling places.
3. Teach (workshops) patrons what the issues are and help develop
sound-bites to express the details.
4. Teach (workshops) how political manipulation works (emotional
distraction and fear-mongering) and why it takes place (disordered mental
states expressing power and control needs).
> Yes, it's a cynical view ...
I don't think it is cynical at all to recognize human nature and the
psychological factors that influence human decision-making. In, fact it
allows the factors underlying political debate to be addressed practically
rather than allowing those factors to change the debate.
> ... you have to show [the professional politicians] that it doesn't just
> affect the librarians, but also all of people who use the libraries.
OTOH, one has to address the fact that it is the people who use libraries
(or medical care or unemployment insurance or gynecology or post offices
or other 'Safety nets") that the vocal and oppressive element of the
political "profession" are trying to dis-empower.
The attention of influential people needs to be focused on the methods
that can be used to distort issues, not just the issue themselves, and
responsible people in positions of authority (e.g in possession of info)
need to become more influential.
It is absolutely insane that no one is drawing parallels between the
methods that have been used in past history (e.g 1920s-1945 Germany and so
many abusive Latin American states) and what is taking place now. The
reason for the similarities have not changed: if power and control is
achievable by manipulation and people and information can be manipulated,
then manipulators will *compulsively* attempt to dominate entire societies
by eradicating "public" institutions and having "wealth" transferred to
and concentrated in non-public bodies.
It's as simple as the structured brain on a person's head and can be
explained in similarly simple terms, not the usual political double-talk.
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 Aug 01 2011 - 13:13:14 EDT