Could we all call a truce in political crusades that have nothing to do with librarianship?
Hunter
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of john g marr
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 12:11 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Need for change (Was: dates)
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 - 13:42:10 EDT