Stop, look, listen, think about what's going on

Props to anyone who remembers the PSA that the titular ditty is from (rock on 90's cartoon PSAs!)

This, however, is not a PSA about keeping the peace and being strong. It's simply this: Government! Yes you, whom I pay taxes to, who repairs my roads, who keeps me safe in war and peace, yes you. Cease with the bailouts! The mortgage situation, in large part, is a bed made by us and now we lie in it. Lying, in fact, is what got us there. Remember, my mother's brokerage specializes in loss mitigation and loan renegotiation. I'm not just some outsider, I'm on the ground floor of this business, and I'm telling you this: people's own greed, stupidity, decietfulness, and vice is what got us here. People decided they were entitled to the American dream without a second's worth of work; they believed that a house and a Hummer and a Sea Doo and designer clothes should fall into their laps because of the (perceived) cleaverness of them. That's not the way it works, and that's not actually the American dream.

The American dream? That's what you're stealing from me by ponying up trillion's of dollars to save the people who lied about their income, their work, their life, and their needs to get a giant house they couldn't afford. The American Dream, simply stated, is that you get what you give. You work? You can get where you want to go. You don't work? You'll get some help, because we look out for each other, but you don't get a damn McMansion. You get tools, not the fish or the damn fleet.

But guess who now gets to fund the bail out of your fabulous home? Me. The girl who pays her taxes, who's making 7.90 an hour at STARBUCKS and trying to get a Master's degree and trying beyond all reason to get herself closer to her fiance. My parents, who try as hard as they can to keep a roof over our heads, who try to stay out of debt, who work until 3 am and get up again at 8am and keep going. We don't have uber nice things: there isn't a designer dress or shoe in this house, we drive a Camry and Corolla, not a Beemer. But we eat well, and we can afford a bottle of wine with dinner, and we can sit at the table for hours and talk when we have that luxery. We don't buy the latest iPhone, or computer. We buy generic a lot of times because the name brand isn't worth the extra four bucks. And you know what this whole economic crunch has made me realize? That as much of pain in the ass as that lifestyle may appear, it's wonderful. At no point was I any more worried about economics then I ever have been (we watch CNBC in this house, it's not like I'm ever not worried). I havn't feared losing my house, or my way of life. We live, and we delight in simple things-- my hobby is cross stitch, which is a whopping 35 cents to fund (per color of course). We read books, we borrow movies from the library. We take advantage of the one thing that government does really well. Local government has always been about being the closest to the people, to making sure that they're taken care of. Part of that? All sorts of low cost or free stuff. Libraries, pilates, free movie nights, all sorts of community events that you already paid for through your taxes.

You remember all those old stories of village parties and town square fairs? How people came together and just hung out? How they were both self sufficient and part of the community? Why not just update it? There's no reason that it should be limited like it was then. Bring everyone in. Here's where idealism takes over. If you actually interact with people in the community-- people of ALL types, races, religions, ethnicities, tax brackets-- you might find that some social issues ease. If you're my friend you're my friend, and I don't give a damn about the rest. If you annoy me, well, take comfort in the fact that it's likely just clashing personalities and not a deeper problem (I told you idealism). In the meantime, don't take the money for that away so that you can save a bunch of liars and cheats the "indignity" of having to do an honest day's work.

You know what grinds my gears?

I seriously cannot fathom basing Library Science/Information studies research on Marxist theory. I can't. I don't see why anyone would WANT to. I don't understand why Marx's substructure/superstructure works as a basis for research and the libraries when, quite frankly, it doesn't exist as he imagined it to in the real world. It certainly doesn't exist when taken out of his whole theory.

I mean, certainly things are culturally determined, but the superstructure was everything: state, church, family, personal relationships, academia (hint, hint, yo). If we base ourselves in that superstructure aren't we admitting that we are participating in something that is alienating man from himself, that our work is simply ephemeral and will pass away with all of the world as we know it when the revolution comes? Of course not, because we take only the idea of substructure, superstructure, and cultural hegemony. We also should think capitalism is evil, but I'll be you that none of these people have considered that Marx is probably rolling in his grave that the INSTITUTIONS of man's alienation are now trying to pick and choose his theory. I mean, give the man some respect and leave his theory intact. Geez.

Why academia, well, sucks.

It was a secret hidden well from me. My parents did it on purpose, the faculty of Thomas More saw it as something to be avoided at all costs. The secret I speak of is typical academia's attitude toward their students. Quite simply, they assume that you are rock stupid and unable to comprehend anything so well as they. Prodigies are acceptable only in grade school, perhaps high school. Beyond that, the professor knows all and you can only hope to achieve a measure of his greatness.
I was so blissfully ignorant going into my Master's program. I assumed that, along with being able to address your professors by first name came a certain amount of respect, if for no other reason than that you survived the undergraduate days and decided that pushing forward was a good idea. This idea was quickly knocked out of me after I left 504, "Librarian Boot Camp." I expected Drill Sergeants for profs and I got nice people. This, I was told, was the norm. I could expect earnest people who sought to impart wisdom. I should have known better than to expect the Boomer generation to think anyone could touch them, let alone learn.

Now before you say "But your profs at TMC were boomers!" they really aren't. Dr. Sampo is the "Greatest Generation," Drs. Fahey, Nelson, and Blum are too young to be in the Boomer generation. I think they fall between Gen X and Boomers, which I count as a good thing. I suppose that Dr. Mumbach qualifies, but she always stuck me as ageless, so I'll let it slide. So you see, I escaped there. Now I find myself faced with them, full on. There's something about the Boomer generation I just don't understand. Perhaps it's because they, in many ways, had it the best of all the generations we're dealing with now. They got the 50's ideal, they were the first generation that could really afford superfluous things like nice cars or vacations. And I think it went to their heads.

There are also a lot of them. They run just about everything, because the baby boom was so large. If I had even a dime for every time I endured a snide remark because of my youth (and thus, my perceived stupidity), I would be able to retire now a wealthy woman. This attitude of superiority is only worsened with the title "Professor." A PhD seems to confer a false sense of superiority that enables it's bearer to look down their nose at everyone younger than them, regardless of actual ability, intelligence, or qualities. As part of this, it is apparently necessary to assign readings that insult the basic intelligence of any person with the ability to use their brain. If you disagree with the article, clearly you are in the wrong because several of the author's colleagues reviewed the article and it was published! Have you been published? Therefore you are in no position to judge good research from bad!

The fact of the matter is that, despite my 22 years, I AM in a position to judge. I have read a large chunk of Western Canon. I have done an in depth study of a legal system which is nothing if not complex, and if you think that doesn't involve research you underestimate the project. I have performed analysis on political philosophies, literary interpretations, and plain old fashioned philosophy for four years. I have written, presented, and defended my study of common law and was complimented on my work by no less than a "Who's who" of Notre Dame Alumni, a man who holds two Master's degrees from Oxford, and an incredibly accomplished and published literary critic. And they were the least scary of the 100 person panel to whom I presented and defended my thesis. I did a semester long study of one man's political theory, a man who designed the American Executive and the Electoral College, as well as the man who took 20 resolutions and formed them into a document that would become the US Constitution. Hardly an easy study to do, and I did it, and did it well. Age is not a factor, accomplishment is. Even without a PhD, I can find an article insultingly simple and wrong.

A few highlights:

• Making "Hegemony" equivalent with political myth, sociology, and "acceptance."
• The 'pluralist paradigm'-- the idea that all groups within a given social science can have a paradigm, that each of these paradigms is in fact a paradigm, that each is equally valuable, and that this lack of consensus is in fact a STRENGTH
• That having no dominant group within a society can constitute an hegemony
• That the values of America are applicable to an international field as its base (btw? Fact chance that anyone else will agree with you on that)
• That the world can be "falsely imagined as a realm of facts independent of the knower." Moreover, they think that this means the same thing as not taking research out of context. If you're going to follow Hume, follow Hume and say you don't know the sun is gonna rise tomorrow. Don't do this weird side step watoosie that doesn't actually say anything.
• That the best way to understand research in library science is a Hegelian-Marxist-Neitzchan idea.
• Non canonical theory-- if it's in a book, it's canon. If it's canon, it had a maker. If it had a maker, it is automatically ideological in the worst sense and should be ignored, repudiated, and destroyed.
• Political economy and sociology? Totally the same thing.

I've still got 10 or so more pages, but I just can't make it. I cannot read through more of this. I cannot sit there and pretend that any of this is true or good or relevant. That's the kicker. This class is about RESEARCH, and apparently this means that we have to find what's wrong with everything according to our only socially constructed ideological bent. I guess I don't mind the ideology so much; it's the fact that the article claims it's uncovering it that bothers me. It's almost worse when you consider that they made a sort of shepherd's pie out of the major modern and and postmodern ideologies and called it fresh and new.

In the words of lolcats? UR DOING IT WRONG

In defense of words

I'm not touching the political mess that is the November General Election, simply because while it is rife with examples of the importance of words, I can't find my hip waders and I refuse to enter the muck without them. This whole train of thought stems from my graduate work.

One of my classes this semester is Organization of Information. That seems to be pretty self explanatory right? How information is organized for retrieval. Easy as pie. Buried deep in my lecture was a note: Don't get hung up on the use of "bibliographic" to describe non-books. The term doesn't matter because we'll use it how we use it.

WHAT?!?!?!?!

For starters, I understand that bibliographic is a word that has undergone evolution-- books as such didn't really exist in Greece. However, in English, bibliography is regarding books. It's the way that Greek translates into English. No one will argue that. There's this underlying idea that the word as such doesn't matter, simply how we use it.

Words don't work like that. They just don't. If you use bibliography to mean everything but books, how will anyone know? You're violating the inherent meaning of the word. More importantly, how exactly do you intend to communicate with anyone? If words mean only what you choose them to mean, and what I choose them to mean, then how do we ever reach consensus? Realistically, politics is the perfect example of the chaos of subjective word meaning. Words have inherent meaning-- they have to. To say that you can change them at the drop of a hat, the better to fit your personal meaning is ludicrous.

Librarianship isn't the only field guilty of this particular offense, its just the one I'm in at the moment. Precision of language has fallen by the wayside, something outdated like doing your own work and realizing that you are not the center of the universe. The problem is that it shouldn't be: being exact in language shouldn't be an option for those who care.