Questions About Arming Teachers

As we continue to grapple with the need to reduce gun violence and, in particular, to protect our young people in their schools, the same tired old recommendations keep arising. One of them, being pushed by Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, is an extension of the "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" mantra - arm teachers so they can protect their students. This is already being done by some schools, mostly in isolated rural areas where a police response to an incident may be long in arriving (see a representative discussion here)

I think arming our children's teachers and expecting them to be warriors when needed is an abysmally stupid idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don't respect our teachers or pay them a decent wage now ... and yet some would ask them to put their lives on the line as armed guards as well.

There have been a lot of articles and analyses looking at the desirability and the economics of arming our school teachers. Here are some of the questions that have been asked about the recommendation to turn our teachers into bodyguards, compiled from a large number of articles and analyses I've read over the last week. Some overlap or partially duplicate each other, but I think all of them are reasonable and worth detailed discussion and consideration before we do anything really stupid ...

1. Who will decide which teachers will get guns? Will school administrators select the teachers to be armed, or will the armed teachers be selected from those who volunteer? What criteria will be used to select the teachers to be armed? Will teachers who refuse to be armed be penalized for their decision?

2. Who will provide the guns? Will school districts provide guns for their teachers, or will the teachers be required to provide their own guns?

3. If school districts provide guns for their teachers, how will the expense be met at a time when many school districts are already unable to provide textbooks and teaching supplies?

4. If teachers are required to provide their own guns, who will set the requirements for the kinds of guns they must purchase? Will they be reimbursed for guns and ammunition they are required to purchase if they don't own any guns, or the right gun?

5. What type of training will armed teachers be required to attend, how often must they attend, and what standards will they be required to meet? Who will provide the training and who will set the standards to be met? Will the teachers be required to pay to attend this training? Will they be reimbursed?

6. Where will the guns be stored at the school when they are not being carried? Will each room be required to have an appropriate gun safe?

7. Who determines the rules of engagement for use of firearms by armed teachers (that is, the rules governing when a teacher is authorized to draw or brandish a weapon)? Will these be set at the national, state, or local level?

8. Who will audit armed teachers' adherence to regulations governing weapons in school? What penalties will apply to teachers who mishandle a weapon?

9. Will teachers be required to disclose any history of mental illness, criminal records, or other disqualifying information before being issued a gun? Will teachers with a history of mental illness be allowed to carry weapons in school?

10. How will administrators conduct non-weapon-related discipline against a teacher? Will there be armed assistance available to deter workplace shootings?

11. If an armed teacher is attempting to locate and deal with an "active shooter," who will be responsible for protecting that teacher's classroom?

12. What happens if a teacher, in good faith, misidentifies a student or another armed teacher or security person as a threat?

13. Will teachers who do not wish to carry lethal weapons be authorized to carry nonlethal alternatives (pepper spray, mace, Tasers, etc)?

14. If an armed teacher is shot, can another teacher without the appropriate training use his or her weapon?

15. How will armed teachers identify themselves to arriving first responders?

16. Will armed teachers be required to attempt an arrest before using lethal force? Will they be required to fire warning shots? Will they be trained to "shoot to wound" before shooting to kill?

17. Will weapons proficiency training count for teachers' continuing education and professional development/certification? Who will pay for this training (see question #5)?

18. How will insurers write policies and adjust liability insurance premiums for schools and for individual teachers to account for the known presence of weapons in the workplace?

19. Will teachers receive additional pay for being armed?

20. Will armed teachers leading field trips be authorized to carry their weapons with them? What will they do with their weapons if they are not permitted in the field trip destination - will their personally owned vehicles or school-owned transport be outfitted with secure storage boxes?

21. How many teachers in a school campus should be armed? Who decides, and what criteria do they use?

22. Do parents have a right to refuse to send their kids to schools with armed teachers?

23. Will students or their parents have to legally acknowledge the presence of guns in their schools, and agree to accept the attendant risk? If a parent signs this acknowledgement on behalf of a minor student who comes of age during the school year, can the student refuse to abide by its provisions? What are his/her options?

24. Will armed teachers attend pep rallies, dances, or other gatherings? Will they participate in lockdown drills as if they were armed or unarmed?

25. Will funding for armed teacher programs, if it is provided, be distributed according to local budgets, statewide formulas, or national formulas?

26. What is the right ratio of armed to unarmed teachers? Will schools in high-risk neighborhoods be authorized more armed teachers than schools in neighborhoods perceived as being at lower risk? What factors will be considered in making this decision, and who will make it?

27. What should be the procedure for debriefing and assessing armed teachers' performance during a crisis?

28. Can an armed teacher who fails to perform his/her function in an emergency be fired or otherwise disciplined? What should be the consequences for an armed teacher who does not act according to the rules of engagement (see question 7) during an emergency?

29. Who is liable if a gun is stolen from an armed teacher and later used in a crime: the teacher or the school?

Go ahead ... let me know what you think.

Have a good day. Stay safe ... and reasonable.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Dealing with Nazis and Other Miserable People

We're facing a lot of problems in our country today, and many of them are connected - oddly enough - to the freedoms we cherish as Americans.

We enjoy freedom of speech ... but so do neo-Nazis and others who exploit that freedom to slander and threaten their fellow citizens they view as insufficiently "pure."

We enjoy freedom of the press ... but it provides freedom to vile websites like The Daily Stormer and Infowars.com as much as it does The Washington Post or the Dallas Morning News.

We enjoy freedom of assembly ... but that freedom applies as much to "antifa" extremists and neo-Nazis as it does to normal people.

We enjoy the right to bear arms ... and live with the unsettling reality of mass shootings and of people who want to carry military-style weapons wherever they go, regardless of the rights, opinions, and safety of others.

Experience shows that the people who exploit their freedoms to force their agendas on others are utterly impervious to reason and logic, so how do we combat their ideas?

Perhaps with laughter.

I call your attention to this article by Kevin Hagopian on Intellectual Takeout: Charlie Chaplin Showed Us a Better Way to Deal With Nazis. Mr Hagopian writes,

"While many anti-fascists offered serious and potent arguments against Hitler, comedians like Charlie Chaplin responded to the mortal threat that the Nazis posed in a different way: They used humor to highlight the absurdity and hypocrisy of both the message and its notorious messenger."

Nowadays, the broad slapstick humor of a Charlie Chaplin has been replaced by the slightly more sophisticated lampoonery of Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Trevor Noah, but the targets remain the same: the self-important authoritarians and single-issue zealots who are utterly convinced of their own righteousness and immune to thoughts and positions other than their own.

Humor may not always be appreciated, and for various reasons. Earlier this week, I noted the fierce blowback I received from a friend who believed a satirical comment about a libertarian response to Hurricane Harvey was inappropriate. Naturally, I disagreed. Humor should never be deliberately hurtful, but there's a role to play for the joke that brings those who need it down a peg or two.

Make a joke at the expense of a Tiki Torch Nazi, a religious bigot, or a fulminating racist today. It may be the best way to expose them for what they are.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Charlie Chaplin lampooned Hitler in his film "The Great Dictator," in which he portrayed the buffoonish Adenoid Hynkel, tyrannical leader of the nation of Tomania; Jack Oakie played his equally buffoonish ally Benzino Napolini, dictator of Bacteria. Hitler was also sent up by many other comedians and cartoon artists, memorably Spike Jones with his timely hit "Der Führer's Face."

Guidelines for Political Party Representatives Arriving at Bilbo's Door

We are now into the season when vast armies of political drones fan out and go door-to-door in our neighborhoods, trying to convince us to vote for their desired candidates. I don't mind this ... I actually enjoy talking to someone, as opposed to hanging up on stupid and time-wasting robo-calls which invariably attack one candidate without shedding any light on the positions of the other.

Yes, I enjoy the opportunity to exchange views with campaign workers, although I find that they usually arrive with their minds made up, and are interested only in changing my mind rather than allowing new or contradictory information into their own. With this in mind, here are a few guidelines for vote scavengers who come to my door ... who should know up front that I do not suffer fools gladly:

1. I get one vote. Your job is to convince me to give it to your candidate. It is not your job to convince me to vote against anyone else. See #3 below.

2. All I want to hear from you is specific information on your candidate's policy proposals and stands on issues. If you can't answer detailed questions about them, go away and send someone who can. Don't waste my time.

3. Don't say anything about the other candidate ... I do not care in the least about your opinion. The other candidate's representative can tell me about him or her ... all I want to hear from you is what I specified in #2 above. I am perfectly capable of comparing information I get from the two of you and making decisions on my own.

4. Don't get mad at me when I ask you detailed questions and try to pin down evasive answers. My experience shows that you will probably interpret probing questions as attacks on your candidate, rather than as attempts to gain information you should have at your fingertips. If that's your attitude, go away and waste someone else's time.

5. With respect to #4 above: detailed questions about your candidate do not equate to support for the other candidate. You should be prepared to answer such questions. If you accuse me of being stupid* or supporting the other candidate just because I want better information about yours, be sure your nose is far enough away from the door to avoid being hurt when I slam it shut.

There's more, but these will do for now. Be sure to observe them if you show up at my door in search of support.

Have a good day. Ask good questions and expect good answers when the scavengers come to your door ... but don't get your hopes up. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* This actually happened in the last election, when two ladies representing Mitt Romney got very upset when I kept asking them policy questions they couldn't answer. The older of the two said I was clearly dumb enough to be voting for Obama ... which was the end of the discussion.

Age Limits

How old is too old when it comes to dancing the horizontal tango?

Yesterday afternoon we were watching "Britt," a German talk show that Agnes enjoys. It's a bit like the Jerry Springer show, but without the thrown punches and swinging chairs ... each show has a provocative theme and a group of 5 - 7 guests who interact with Britt Hagedorn (the host) and each other. I think it's kind of dumb, but Agnes wants me to watch it to improve my German vocabuary.

Anyhow, the theme of yesterday's show was whether or not there's an upper age limit for the practicing of sex. The guests included a good-looking 67 year-old man who professed to enjoying sex several times per week, and to have had more than 500 (!)* partners; a young woman who viewed the mid-40's as the age after which the very thought of sex is yucky; an older woman (in her late 70s) who still enjoys sex with her husband; a born-again woman who believed sex outside of marriage - especially after about 40 - was wrong (although her two children were born out of wedlock, if to the same father); and an attractive young woman who thought sex between older people is "cute."

As you might suspect, no one convinced anyone else to change their minds. The "discussion" ranged from the propriety (and perceived yuck factor) of May-December sexual relations to the disgust most young people seem to have at the thought of their parents having sex**.

Speaking with all the authority of an almost-65 year-old fellow, I can only say this: have all the sex you want, as long as you can, with whomever you want, of whatever age, as long as you're careful about it. It's said that one of the few benefits allotted to a man as he ages is that every year, there are more women he thinks are attractive. As long as both partners are willing and aren't hurting anyone else, go for it.

I sowed all my wild oats long ago, and have settled down to being a sex symbol emeritus, the proud father of three and grandfather of six. I have a great many female friends of all ages, but only one with whom I'm still interested in dancing that horizontal tango.

And that's not likely to change as the clock grinds inexorably on.

Have a good day. Enjoy the intersection of biology and physics while you can.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Who does he think he is ... Wilt Chamberlain?

** Although they'd be in a pretty bad fix if their parents hadn't had sex, wouldn't they?

A Slight Detour into One of the Reasons Government Has Grown So Huge

I'm about to take the usual detour from random thoughts into the Friday-through-Monday cycle* of routine posts, which means that you'll have to wait until next Tuesday for the next part of my government reorganization plan. But just to whet your appetite and to give you an idea of the magnitude of the challenge of getting government under control, I thought I'd share with you one of the most amazing things you will ever see: a chart which depicts the major systems acquisition process for the Department of Defense:

Now, obviously you can't read anything on the chart at this size ... click it to embiggen it and, if you still can't read the detail, go here.

The US military operates some of the finest, deadliest, most technologically advanced weapons in the world, but it’s a miracle that any of them actually get built. The Defense Acquisition System is a monument to bureaucratic and fiscal complexity, and ensures that it’s virtually impossible to field anything quickly. Much of the process is devoted to ensuring that (1) things that are built are actually needed and justified by documented requirements; (2) things that are built are delivered on schedule; (3) things that are built work as promised when delivered; and (4) things that are built comply with all relevant laws and Congressional direction**. All four of these steps are fraught with danger and complexity (such as “requirements creep,” low-bidders coming back to the till to ask for ever more money, and reliance too early in the process on technology that isn’t quite ready yet), but Congressional political considerations also play a role. For instance, there is scarcely a single major weapons program that does not have parts manufactured or assembled in dozens of different Congressional districts as a way of ensuring Congressional support for the program.

I'll have more to say on all this later. For now, look at the chart and think about how many people and how much money it takes to make all those things happen.

Crying is authorized.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow for the announcement of the Left Cheek Ass Clown for March ... believe it or not, I haven't yet decided who to name. That's how difficult the choice is getting to be.

Bilbo

* Ass Clown Award, Cartoon Saturday, Poetry Sunday, Musical Monday.

** And boy, can Congress give direction when there's money and political considerations involved.

Bilbo's Government Reorganization, Part 1: Homeland Security

You will recall, Dear Readers, that last week I started a discussion about reducing the size of the federal government. This is one area where I am in fundamental, although not total, agreement with most conservatives and libertarians, although we approach it from differing perspectives.

I believe, as do my conservative and libertarian friends, that government should be as small as practical, that its activities should be limited to those which are essential at each level (national, state, and local), and that it should be as unobtrusive as possible in the life of the average citizen. The problem, as I wrote before, is that we have an enormous government today because we’ve asked for it … not in so many words, but we have decided as a nation that there are services and protections we want and expect our government to provide, and our government has grown a gigantic bureaucracy to provide them.

And so today we have a national government that spans three branches (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial), fifteen cabinet departments, some 57 “Independent Establishments and Government Corporations,” and any number of other dogs and cats* that exist both on and off the books. Beneath that, each state has its own government with all its own departments and agencies, and below that, each county (or parish, yes, Angel) and city or town has its own mechanism of government. The total number of people employed by government structures at all levels in this country is probably larger than the population of many other countries.

So how do we put this beast on a diet?

In my earlier post, I suggested reducing the number of national-level cabinet departments from 15 to seven, but – in true political candidate fashion - did not provide any details. Today, I’d like to start spelling out what I’d do if I were king**. I’ll start with a look at the low-hanging fruit of the cabinet, the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS.

DHS was established in the wake of the hysteria that followed the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, in order to address a perceived lack of coordination among the various agencies which shared responsibility for various aspects of our national defense. Instead of strengthening the lines of management and coordination and clearly designating an existing agency*** as the responsible lead for defense of the homeland, Congress reacted in time-honored bureaucratic fashion by adding another layer of management to an already convoluted structure. Here is the organizational chart for DHS as it exists today:

Now consider these points, most of which are common to all government agencies:

1. The establishment of DHS required the creation of a whole new management layer … essentially, everything in the top three rows of the chart. Not a single one of these organizational elements actually contributes directly to your security … each one simply provides managerial oversight and direction to those that do. Every single agency of the government has a General Counsel, a Legislative Affairs office to deal with Congress, a Public Affairs office to issue calming words during periods of disaster and scandal, and a Policy office to churn out directions to the people actually doing the work.

2. DHS, and every government agency, has a Secretary, a Deputy (or Under) Secretary, and any number of Principal/Deputy/Assistant Secretaries, each of whom has a staff of aides, executive assistants, regular assistants, secretaries, liaisons to other agencies, etc, etc. While someone clearly needs to be in charge, and to have a supporting staff to – if nothing else – respond to inane questions from Congress, all those staffs consist of people who need salaries, office space and supplies, computers, and all the accouterments of a modern office. This means a great deal of money is being spent simply on defending the boss and the budget … not on defending the homeland.

I propose to eliminate the DHS and reassign its duties and functions as shown in the annotated DHS organization chart below (click it to embiggen it):

As you can see, I would completely eliminate the management layers of the organization, and reassign the actual “doers” to one of the seven new cabinet offices^†. Most would fold into the Department of Defense, some to the Department of Justice, and others to the Departments of National Infrastructure or Citizen Services. The Bureau of US Customs and Border Protection would be divided between the Treasury Department (Customs) and the Defense Department (Border Protection).

Now, I don't know if this is practical or not, but it seems logical and rational to me. It's easy to pick on DHS because of the way it was kludged together in the heat of passion and the absence of thought and study. In the coming days and weeks, I'll look at the rest of the cabinet departments and let you know what I'd do with them.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* No offense intended to our canine and feline friends.

** Besides hiring a deep bench of headsmen to help me roll heads.

*** I thought that was why we had a Department of Defense, after all.

^† The Departments of State, The Treasury, Justice, Labor & Commerce, Defense, National Infrastructure, and Citizen Services.

Cut Government Down to Size, Hold the Hyperbole

One of the major tenets of modern conservative and libertarian philosophies is that government at all levels must be kept as small and inobtrusive as possible consistent with what we need it to do. This has led to calls for major cuts in the Federal government, in particular, to eliminate agencies that are unnecessary, too large, overly powerful, or otherwise undesirable from a philosophical or constitutional perspective.

For what it’s worth, I agree that government should be lean and … well … not mean, but agile and responsive, without needless layers of bureaucracy that delay action and diffuse responsibility. I believe, as do many conservatives and libertarians, that government is best when it’s closest to the governed … meaning that our most important levels of government are those at the local (city, county/parish, or state) level, where elected and appointed officials have more direct insight into local concerns.

I don’t think too many people would argue with ideas like those. But what a whole lot of people argue with are the specific cuts to be made and the final shape and responsibilities of the government at each level. It all depends on whose ox is being gored, to use the old expression.

Why has government grown so large? There are a lot of reasons; here are a few:

1. Because we wanted it to. Nobody really wants to hear that, but it's true. Because we, as a nation, have decided we want water we can drink, air we can breathe, medicines that are safe, and many other things, Congress has created cabinet departments and various agencies to see that these things are accomplished.

2. Because Congress almost never builds a "sunset clause" into legislation that establishes new agencies. Perhaps the original purpose of a particular office or agency was achieved, but bureaucracy has its own inertia, and if there's no direct order to close or life span established for it, it will go on forever.

3. Because a large government provides employment for a lot of civil servants (or bureaucrats, to use the pejorative term), and because it provides a very large number of political patronage positions* that can be used to reward the incumbent party faithful, there's not much incentive for Congress or the Executive Branch to cut back.

4. Because nobody outside of their organization knows what most government agencies do. I can pretty much guarantee you that the Cabinet officers don't have a real idea about what most of the people in their organizations are actually doing ... and if they don't, why should anyone else? 

There are probably other reasons, too, but those four will do for a start. 

So, it's easy to shout that government is too big and must be pared back to make it less expensive and more responsive, and that's not a bad thing. But what - specifically - should be eliminated?

Almost no one who runs for office is willing to be specific on this issue, because every government organization, no matter how small, has a constituency that a politician is loath to offend. The major exception in the current presidential campaign is Senator Ted Cruz, whose website lists five agencies he would eliminate, calling them by the catchy term "Five for Freedom."  They are (with the language of his website in parentheses):

The Internal Revenue Service ("end the political targeting, simplify the tax code, and abolish the IRS as we know it");

The Department of Education ("return education to those who know our students best: parents, teachers, local communities, and states. And block-grant education funding to the states");

The Department of Energy ("cut off the Washington Cartel, stop picking winners and losers, and unleash the energy renaissance");

The Department of Commerce ("close the “congressional cookie jar” and promote free-enterprise and free trade for every business"); and,

The Department of Housing and Urban Development ("offer real solutions to lift people out of hardship, rather than trapping families in a cycle of poverty, and empower Americans by promoting the dignity of work and reforming programs such as Section 8 housing").

As you might suspect, I have a few comments on his choices:

The IRS is everyone's favorite whipping boy, and abolishing it certainly has wide appeal. I hate the IRS as much as anyone. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution**, ratified in 1913, granted Congress the power to levy an income tax, and Congress in turn established an agency (the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the forerunner of today's IRS) to administer the taxation program. The IRS will remain a hated and feared, yet necessary institution until other structural problems with government organization and spending allow it to be reduced (but likely never eliminated). And remember: you may hate the IRS, but it exists only to administer the tax laws which are written by ... yes, Congress.

Eliminating the Department of Education is, in my humble opinion, a staggeringly bad idea. It sounds great to "return education to those who know our students best: parents, teachers, local communities, and states," but when people (mostly conservatives) belittle teachers and state and local agencies slash education funding to pay for other things, I have little confidence in the interest or ability of state and local government agencies at those levels to educate our children***. And considering that religious conservatives ceaselessly and unconstitutionally work to impose religiously-based curricula in our schools, I think someone needs to be the watchdog. Should there be some local control over schools: yes. Should the federal government run all our schools: certainly not, but it has a legitimate role in establishing minimum national standards for education ... because a democracy relies on an educated and informed population.

I think there's a good argument to be made for cutting back on the size and power*** of the Department of Energy ... most of its functions could probably be folded into other existing agencies. But I'm not sure I understand how eliminating the DoE would "unleash the energy renaissance." Sounds like wild hyperbole to me.

Eliminating the Department of Commerce is an interesting choice for a self-described strict follower of the Constitution, because the Constitution specifically assigns the Congress the responsibility "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Should the Commerce Department's duties be changed or limited, or folded into another agency? Perhaps. But eliminating it outright ... bad move, and arguably unconstitutional.

Getting rid of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is something I could probably support, although only after a careful review to identify programs that ought to be retained and reassigned to other agencies. This is a prime example of an agency that ought to be working at the state and local, rather than the national level, with governors and mayors working those issues for their states and cities.

So much for my opinion of what Mr Cruz wants to do. I think he's a few eggs short of an omelette, but at least he's put a plan forward. What would Bilbo eliminate from the government? We'll address that in the coming days.

Have a good day. Don't scream and shout ... study and plan and offer rational, defensible suggestions. If you can't do that, please sit down, shut up, and let the adults figure things out.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Every four years the Government Printing Office publishes a book titled United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, commonly known as "The Plum Book." The current (2012) version is 220 pages long and lists every position available for the incoming administration to fill, along with details of the present incumbent, pay grade, tenure, expiration date (if any), etc. It makes for some fascinating reading.

** "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

*** Mary Lou Bruner, 68, a former kindergarten teacher running for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education, has claimed on social media that President Obama worked as a gay prostitute in his youth to support a drug habit, that the United States should ban Islam, that the Democratic Party had John F. Kennedy killed, and that the United Nations had hatched a plot to depopulate the world. She rejects teaching the theory of evolution in schools in favor of creationism ... clearly unconstitutional and wildly out of alignment with mountains of scientific evidence,

#letmelibrarianthatforyou

I ran across a fascinating article by Hanna Kozlowska last week - Here’s What People Did Before They Could Google Things. It describes the discovery by the New York Public Library staff of a box of notecards with questions the librarians received from library patrons, either in person or over the phone, in the decades of the 1940s to the 1980s ... before the age of Google. Some of them are amazing, and give one a whole new respect for the research talents of underappreciated librarians.

In the decades ... if not centuries before the advent of the personal computer and the internet, it was the librarian who was the person to whom we turned as a source of information. She (and it usually was a she, wasn't it?) listened to our questions and steered us in the direction of what we needed to know. Libraries held tens of thousands of books arranged according to the impenetrable (to me, anyway) Dewey Decimal System, and it was the librarian who helped make sense of it all. And the librarians of the New York Public Library, using the hashtag #letmelibrarianthatforyou, are sharing on Instagram some of the more interesting questions from that box they found. Here's one ...

A few others, according to the article, included:

"... when you meet a fellow and you know he's worth twenty-seven million dollars because that's what the told me, twenty-seven million, and you know his nationality, how do you find out his name?"

- “My daddy owns the second oldest lighthouse in the country, where can I sell it?”

- “I would like to know the physical characteristics of Adolf Hitler. I think I’ve found him—he walks heavier on one foot and everything.”

- "What is the lifespan of an eyelash?"

- "How many neurotic people are there in the US?"*

I remember that when I got my master's degree in 1990, one of the required courses was an introduction to research methods ... teaching us how to find arcane information buried in the depths of the library. We learned where to go to answer questions like "what was the per capita production of beer in Ireland in 1968?," "what is the process by which laws are drafted and enacted in Botswana?," and "how many goats are raised each year in Afghanistan?" It was a frustrating, yet fun course that introduced us to a range of information sources we might not otherwise have known. Today, of course, you can Google that information and have your answers in seconds ... but you often don't know the provenance of that information, or you get so many hits that you can't figure out which to use.

Thus, the value of the librarian. As one of the librarians at the NYPL said in the article, “We have taken a role of bridging the gap between technology and information.” Google can provide vast amounts of information, but a librarian can help separate the informational wheat from the chaff of spam and narrow that glut of information down to the specific and accurate answers you need.

Librarians. They may not be your usual idea of superheroes ...

... but they've always been heroes to me.

Have a good day. If you don't know how, ask a librarian.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I think whatever the number is, it will go up astronomically as the GOP presses its hardcore conservative agenda in the new Congress, and as the presidential election approaches.