The Internet is CLOSED.

So some Internet lawsuits were filed that seem to prove again that the USPTO should never have changed their patent application rules to include software processes.

What do you think when you think of the World Wide Web? You think of images and text and sound and video files? Well, too bad. Because you just trampled all over somebody's private property.

Whenever I read about some Internet patent, I think about how that patent would work in the real world. If I read something that says, "Method for transfer of data utilizing electronic media," I can't help but wonder WTF the Patent Office registrar was thinking when the patent application was approved. I've been transferring data since I was born. And I've been doing it electronically since I was stung by a radioactive lightning bug and became the superhero known to you as "Firefly Man."

It's like companies apply for patents for everything that didn't already happen to have a patent number. Like someone just searches some keywords and if they don't see a patent, they file one.... "Let's see 'process for third-party temporary remote data storage'.. Awesome! There's no patent listed for that! Quick! File for it!"

So what do you think I thought when I saw these next actual patents?

"Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."

"Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."

"Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."

I think of patents as things. And improvements on things. I don't think of patents as things we already have but are now available online so that makes them unique. To me, "building a better mousetrap" does not mean describing a method for building a better mousetrap unless the mousetrap is behind the couch catching mice. And the mousetrap isn't a cat.

But all these patents make me think of cats. They are things that exist or are necessary components of other things that exist. It's like you patented the steps on a ladder. Some other company makes the ladder, but you own the patent for the "Laterally installed devices in a ladder which allow for a human to achieve vertical movement."

But since most people don't understand the components of a software program, if someone claims that their software does something unique, we often believe them. It doesn't matter if it's a bullshit claim.

And it these cases, the companies accused of the violation are virtually a Who's Who of every huge internet company. So that in itself should be clue.

If you claim that so many others are violating your patent, then that supports the argument that your patent is for something that's so naturally a part of the function of the whole that it's absurd and should never have been allowed to become patented.

So I wonder how the Internet is able to function at all. I guess it can't if everyone keeps running around yelling, "Mine! Mine! Mine!"

Here is my patent application for which I expect approval: "Method for applying or 'spreading' butter or margarine to toast to increase its deliciousness." That's mine. I own it. And that includes croissants. So all you bastards owe me money.

If patents like these survive challenges, the we should all file class action suits against the owners:

Complaint: That the product, "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device" has wasted everyone's TIME.
That individual and corporate productivity has decreased 30-55% due to the direct interference of this invention at a collective cost to individuals and corporations of $465 billion over the last 19 years. Our complaint accuses the inventor and/or patent holder of wasting our precious time by "occupying our peripheral attention" when we had important shit to do.
So we are asking for the full $465 billion in lost productivity plus punitive damages of $2 trillion.

Silent Library: Why hadn't any of you told me about this?

I didn't know there was a Japanese then American game show where people had to perform idiotic stunts in a library while keeping quiet. Holy crap, this is awesome.

Except that the "librarian" judge looks like a schmuck.

Silent Library - MTV Shows

Success of MTV's Jersey Shore Bad for Libraries.

The State of New Jersey is in a tough situation. A revenue shortfall is forcing Governor Chris Christie to make some hard decisions: How can New Jersey raise money? What does New Jersey produce that people want?

The answer clearly, based on the popularity of Jersey Shore, the MTV hit reality show about a group of re-tah-ded guidos and guidettes, is that America wants more stupid New Jerseyans. And the simplest way to guarantee that New Jersey can produce season after season of new cast members is to close down the public libraries.

So that's what the governor proposes: Close the libraries and "Keep New Jersey Stupid." It's not the official state motto, but it's got its supporters.

It is April Fools' Day again, PCWorld?

PCWorld has this solution to the current library budget crises: It's Time for Public Libraries to Get Creative [by Phil Shapiro, Apr 26, 2010 6:30 am].

Mr. Shapiro writes,

"..start using the library space as a collaborative space to make things: books, music CDs, instructional videotapes, screencasts, art, inventions, software, and so on. And then you start selling those creative things to fund the library's operations. You sell those creative products via Amazon's Create Space, Apple's iBookstore, Lulu,..."

One of my library colleagues said this was too stupid for him to respond, to which I replied, "but not too stupid for me to respond?" whereby he agreed. This is exactly stupid enough for the.effing.librarian to respond.

I don't think Phil Shapiro uses public libraries. He says, "Half of a library's operating budget could be generated by the creative output of the people who use that library... Library staff would be hired based on their creative talents..." And then he makes some semi-humorous jokes concerning dead famous people, including Paul McCartney, who could create original material for the library. But his point seems to be that libraries should create their own content to support themselves. We should write our own books. It worked in "Be Kind, Rewind" (which I didn't see), so maybe we should take all the public domain material and rewrite it and make some money? Um.. because it's a stupid idea.

"Who would buy iBooks created by people in your library? Some of the purchasers would be people right in your neighborhood..."

So in place of a tax increase to support suffering libraries, we would produce crap and force the locals to buy it. If there is one solid idea that Mr. Shapiro and I can agree upon, this one is it: using force to get money for libraries.

He also says, "Libraries also need to start forming alliances with hacker spaces." If someone doesn't buy our library crap, we will hack them into the void by taking over their Facebook pages and posting pictures of Ku Klux Klan rallies with tags like "Family reunion, 2010."

I'm sure Phil, can I call you Phil?, believes that modern libraries can behave like his allusion to the modern Renaissance and have artists in residence to produce the materials to support us, but even so, if there were kids mixing club tracks on our computers or little old ladies writing armchair detective erotica, the numbers needed to sustain all the libraries are enormous.

"Half the library's budget," Phil? I don't think your plan could replace 5% of the library's budget.

There are 16,000 public libraries in the United States, counting branches, with 144,000 paid staff. Let's say you work for a large library and your budget shortfall this year is $1 million, or even that you work in a smaller library and you need $100,000; what does this mean to you?

My math sucks, but I'm guessing you'd need to sell 17,000 items at $15 each to raise that smaller library money. And 67,000 $15 items for the large library.

I don't even know what a moderately-successful author sells, but 67,000 items seems like a lot more than most authors ever sell, let alone some crazy person, resident-author using our library computer to bang out poetry made of strings of assorted characters as his head flops onto the keyboard: ...................................... [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ///////////////////////////.
[note: This poem is title, "ode to spring."]

So no, Phil, I don't think we'll be using your idea to save libraries, but thanks for stopping by.

Life is just a...

The Analysis of Bullshit.

So when I see an article like this, I can only think, bullshit: Bullshit methodology and bullshit purpose.

A Writing Revolution
Analysis / by Denis G. Pelli & Charles Bigelow / October 20, 2009

"Rates of authorship are increasing by historic orders of magnitude.

To quantify our changing reading and writing habits, we plotted the number of published authors per year, since 1400, for books and more recent social media (blogs, Facebook, and Twitter). This is the first published graph of the history of authorship.

Authors, once a select minority, will soon be a majority. "

Related graph:


Really. Do you want a fucking medal?

Let me start with the authors' first premise, which is complete bullshit, "Nearly everyone reads."

"Nearly" might be accurate, but it's not nearly good enough for me. There are times when "nearly" isn't fucking good enough. "Nearly everyone made it out alive." "Nearly everyone wasn't on fire." "Nearly everyone got on a lifeboat."

According to this UNESCO report,

"An estimated 776 million adults – or 16% of the world’s adult population – lack basic literacy skills. About two-thirds are women. Most countries have made little progress in recent years. If current trends continue, there will be over 700 million adults lacking literacy skills in 2015.

"...forty-five countries have adult literacy rates below the developing country average of 79%, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, and South and West Asia. Nearly all of them are off track to meet the adult literacy target by 2015. Nineteen of these countries have literacy rates of less than 55%."

But the author of this publishing "analysis" states:

"Extrapolation of the Twitter-author curve (the dashed line) predicts that every person will publish in 2013."

You mean when a large part of the world is still illiterate?

So either the illiterate will publish what they themselves won't be able to read, or the authors simply forgot about them and left them out of the equation.

I thought the "digital haves" were supposed to care more. But I guess not. Literacy is not a choice. No one says, "I don't think reading is a useful way to spend my time." No. They say, "Damn, I wish I knew what the fuck this label on this bottle says because I just ate some of these pills and now I don't feel so good."

These guys are also redefining the word "author." How would you define an author? The simple definition from m-w.com says, "one that originates or creates."

Each of us is the creator. Each of us dreams. Each expresses these thoughts, wants and desires. Don't tell me that the Internet suddenly validates my creativity. Why? Because more people have the power to ignore it? Do you want to quantify failure? Do you want to say that the Twittererer with 10 posts and no followers doesn't exist?

"In our analysis, we considered an author’s text 'published' if 100 or more people read it."

What do you mean, "read it." Read, as in past tense, like how many people clicked? Or scanned like refreshing the Twitter public time line? Or Read, as in the activity of reading, attempting to understanding of the meaning of the words from the point of view of the author?

I feel it's an insult to every pre-Internet author who scribbled a poem or a message or a drawing; anyone who took a photograph; anyone who hummed a tune or banged two pot lids together, that they are somehow less important because we can't quantify their failures. Don't tell me these people didn't have an audience.

If you want to define published authors by the number of clicks or by the possible audience, then go ahead and disqualify all of my suggestions. No child ever expected her antics to be broadcast publicly for others to enjoy. No writer of a diary ever expected his words to appear in a published journal.

So go back to officially published authors. And compare them to your bloggers and twittererers. Which group is more successful? You have authors in the past producing works that were at least read by an editor or a proofreader or his mother. And you have authors today who are, based on the math, probably read by no one, or such a small fraction of the total, that they aren't really published at all. No one has read their works; unless you count the Internet browser's spell-checker.

"International concern for the minority who can’t read may soon extend to those who can’t publish. "

So we can declare the plague of illiteracy defeated. Woo-hoo! Tell me, asshole, how does Twitter put food on the table? How does it help me to vote for the best candidate? How does it improve my life? The fact that you even attempt to compare the value of literacy to twittererering makes me sick.

Maybe these countries should just give everyone a netbook and a Twitter account; that should solve everything. Many countries aren't doing enough to educate their people. When people read, they are exposed to new ideas. And new ideas aren't always good for some leaders. So if you can publish, why would you need to read?

At least it's clear that the authors have read typical tweets and blogs and comments posted to the Internet. Literacy no longer matters so long as we can click 'Submit'. Even barking dogs have a greater understanding of their own messages than most Internet users.

"Our society is changing from consumers to creators."

When each of us is a creator, the authors of this report will feel, what? That the analysis was dead on?

But what happens when we are each the creator of words or images that no other person can understand? As a fucking librarian, who fucking promotes literacy and education and works to help others better themselves by learning more about what is going on in the world around them, when I hear some fucking asshole talk about how something like Twitter is more fucking important than literacy, it fucking pisses me off.

Then we will truly achieve total Bullshit.

Texting equals WIN?

Re: Text Message Reference: Is It Effective? by Ellyssa Kroski -- Library Journal, 10/15/2009.

“Communication between librarian and patron isn’t hindered at all. We have varying degrees of comfort, among librarians but out patrons don’t seem to notice. In fact, our staff encourages someone who is texting to stop by and see us or give us a call to continue the conversation in-depth.” said Nikhat Ghouse, Digital Reference Librarian at the University of Kansas’ Anschutz Library.

I don't think you will find one article or study on the use of text messaging or SMS in a library situation that didn't include some reference to asking the customer to call or visit the library.

It absolutely blows my mind how people define "success."

Does anyone actually say, "Sure, it was stuck, but the paramedics got it out and I'm told the surgery to reattach it was a success" after losing his penis to a vacuum cleaner? If so, I'm sure it's followed by, "And you might want to leave because I have to cry now. But when I get home, can you help me pack my stuff? Because after this, I can't show my face in this town anymore."

Yes, success!

I find communication successful when mutual understanding and cooperation leads to problem solving.

Like in the library: when we both understand that you are bat-shit crazy, it's easier for me to help you find what you want. Every librarian knows that the reference interview is is not a one-sided process. It's like therapy. It's the kind of help one would expect from a $20 an hour therapist.

But librarians do this shit in 15 seconds. In a reference interview, the customer and I share enough information is 15 seconds for me to do my job correctly. We share language, spoken or written words, gestures, grunts, bodily fluid transfer, screaming, thrown object deflection, and 80,000 volts of good old Con Ed delivered by hand taser. And then I drag the customer to the shelf to get the materials he needs.

Why don't librarians admit that these services, SMS, Twitter, etc. are simply ways of promoting library services. They are not EFFECTIVE tools to assist customers. Unless your customer asks the kinds of questions her grandma could answer.

And it doesn’t seem to matter that the reference interview may take multiple text exchanges, according to these librarians—

Why not? Why is texting better than a phone call? Why do I have to send multiple messages to someone and wait for another message to return, and then, possibly respond to a second or third customer while I wait for the first to reply?

At least in a chat environment, I only have one person to work with. Yes, I answer the phone or pick up a second person, but that's my choice. I don't open the door to the lie of making the first customer believe that I'm waiting solely for his response so I can give more information.

What if this guy doesn't get back to me for five minutes? "I'm back." "Who are you?" "The guy you were just talking to." "Dude, I talk to a lot of people, what was your question?" "Man, I'm not going to repeat it. Why can't you do your job?"

Joe Murphy of Yale University Libraries told me, "I am as able, if not more so than in person, [to provide effective reference via SMS] because ... text messaging is a dominant form of communication for me and my peers."

Oh, so that's it. It's the secret form of communication for Skull & Bones Yalies. Why the fuck didn't you say so? Maybe your buds need to know when the Lightweight Men's Rowing Crew races Princeton? (October 25. T-shirts are $20.)

And speaking of the telephone, "The 160-character limit does not seem to be an impediment; librarians simply send multiple messages or ask patrons to call or come into the library for further help with more complex questions."

It's bad enough that we've had access to telephones for 80 years and idiots still start every question with, "Can I ask you a question? Are you ready for my question?"

"Hello, this is the effing library; how can I help you?"

How much clearer can I be when I answer the phone? You should be prepared to ask your question. You should not observe that you think it's amazing that the library offers this service. The service exists and is happening right now and you are a participant.

When you comment on things as you are doing them, the people around you will walk away. Yes, you may comment that it is a lovely day. Yes, you may express joy. Once. But you can't dwell on the minutiae of existence. When you say, "This is a delicious tuna salad sandwich," that's it, you're done. You can't go on to glorify the balance of celery with the chunks of tuna, nor may you mention whether there's dill. We will fucking kill you.

The tool is only as efficient as the user. And we are all participating in the art of communication. Yes, it is a fucking art.

When you take up a new tool like texting, you'd better be open-minded enough to accept that the tool might not solve these ancient problems. I don't see that texting makes communication better. It just opens the door to people too lazy or too stupid to find the library.

Yes, it's a warm and fuzzy solution because all your peers do it. And it's new. But for fuck sake, understand that it's MAINLY a cool toy that still only promotes the REAL library services involving face-to-face communication.

I am not closed-minded. My opinions evolve when presented with new information. But look at the quotes on the article. Look at how the new service adds "50-90 questions per month," barely a half-day's worth of in-house transactions, and many of those "encourage" the customer to stop by the library anyway.

So, yes, I want to see these transcripts. I want to see how the generation that sends 10,000 texts a month communicates ideas. I'm looking online for texting examples, line by line, with total transaction times, total number of messages.

I want to know what percentage of users have unlimited texting so my new super cool reference service isn't costing some stupid kid $5 just so he can find out whether a book is on the shelf.

Because without that information, I'm just going rant blindly against becoming another co-dependent, gadget-carrying, idiocy-enabler. Unless it does a good job of promoting real library services, then I'm in.

Untitled. Because I can't express my feelings in human language.

I swear to God or Gods or Abe ViGoda that this is true. Whichever God you worship, or don't, I'm swearing to it.

As I passed the computer area, two teen girls shared this conversation (verbatim, to the best of my memory):

Are you on MySpace?

Yeah. I think so.

How did you get there?

I don't know.

How are you spelling it?

I don't know!

No Stupid Questions? They're ALL Stupid Questions!

Why do librarians continue to claim that "there are no stupid questions?" (see recent addition here.)

Where is the librarian who says, "they are all stupid questions?"

No, he isn't me. I'm not that smart that I can say that all questions are stupid. Although we look alike, I'm not Dr. House. I might say seven-eights are stupid questions, but I'm not cocky enough to claim they all are.

But dammit, librarians answer a lot of stupid questions. One of the worst is the email or IM for a specific book: "Does the library have the book, **********?"

I want to answer, "Hey, idiot, you just bypassed the catalog when you contacted me. The same catalog that has been online for over 15 years. But no, you're so Net savvy that you can chat with me for twelve minutes on your Crackberry or iTurd or whatever new doodad you think will make you cooler, about something you could have answered yourself in less than half that time. Whoo, you're a freakin' Internet wizard!"

And on the opposite end, you Internet-deprived jerks, don't call me on the phone and tell me to Google something for you: "Can you Google me a meatloaf recipe that uses peanut butter?" No. No I can't.

If you don't have something, you aren't allowed to tell other people how to use it. If you don't have a car, don't tell me how to drive. If you don't have a kid, don't tell me how to raise mine. If you don't have a penis, don't tell me how to pee so I don't get it all over the floor. If you don't have a life, don't tell me how to live.

So yes, there are stupid questions. Because we are people, and most of us aren't very bright. But go ahead and ask your stupid questions; I'm here to help.

Just don't expect me to choke back my opinion because if you ask if I think your question is stupid, you can be sure I'm going to tell you the truth. "Yes, that's a stupid question. But it's not the stupidest one I've been asked today. So stop worrying. You're not the dumbest person out there. See that guy over there; you should hear what he asked. He's the dumbest."

Witnessed stupidity.

I was in the mall today as a woman approached the directory to find the location of a particular store, and before she could begin her search, her husband stopped her and said, "Don't waste your time. I have my GPS turned on."

I have my GPS turned on. So we've reached the point where we need satellites to help us find Sears.

Now I expect Keanu Reeves to land at any time to destroy all life on Earth.

Oh, other than sucking pretty badly, the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still has a cool ending where (spoiler alert - highlight white text to read..) all the machines in the world are disabled: no more Wii; no more Google; no more Toyota; no more GM (oh, never mind); no more iPhone. So I guess that leaves only books. So I'd still have a job. Cool!

You've seen me naked.

There's a whole chorus of idiot librarians who chant, "Give 'em what they want" when it comes to what libraries should do for the public.

Why the hell did I go to library school to learn liberrianship if all I'm going to do is what people tell me? You think I went to medical school? You think I'm a doctor? You think you can walk in off the street and demand some new drug that you don't need and could probably kill you and that I'll just sign a prescription because the pharmaceutical company gives me a free week in Kyoto if I do? Wait. Bad example.

According to CosmoGirl (yes, I read CosmoGirl; I'm a lifetime subscriber):

A significant percentage of teens (ages 13-19) and young adults (20-26) have electronically sent or posted online nude or semi-nude pictures or videos of themselves:
• 22% of teen girls
• 18% of teen boys
• 36% of young adult women
• 31% of young adult men

[Reposted from USAToday, but the original survey data are here.]

So let's extrapolate some math based on these numbers. If 22% of teen girls and 36% of young adult women have posted naked pictures of themselves online, which is a 63% increase, then by the time you reach the perfectly ripe age of the.effing.librarian, 100% of us have posted pictures or video of ourselves naked on the Internet!

But let's get back to the naked teens. If the girl or boy wants help sending their naked or semi-naked pictures to someone on the Internet, should we help them? Should librarians just give them what they want? There's a whole list of things librarians shouldn't be doing, and when I get some free time, I might compile it, but right now I'm watching Quark, so maybe later.

I think I went to library school to learn what librarians should and shouldn't do. I don't accept free publications from hate groups and distribute them in the library. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm censoring important information. Unfortunately, our job requires us to judge things worthy of distribution. If we only do what people want of us, then why the fuck don't we just keep Amazon.com or some adult DVD site open on a public computer and let everyone order whatever the fuck they want and the library will pay for it?

Because, guess what? We don't fucking do that. Librarians know better than that. Or it seems, up to a point. But don't get me started on that list, the two Betty's are wearing hot pants (yes, still watching Quark).

What we should be telling out patrons is:
"Don't you realize that five minutes after you upload that photo, it's going to be in that guy's email?"
"No, sexxybabii is not a good password."
"Don't you understand how this shit works???!!!"

So go and look for my video; search for librarian and fine booty. I know that's what you want.

WARNING: explicitly filthy rant follows.

I will compose my filth in white text to protect the easily offended. DO NOT highlight the following white text to read it.

The words that follow are not meant for one such as you: you are like an innocent doe in the woods basking in the warmth of sunlight, enjoying a cool breeze. I beg of you to not triple-click and highlight the following text to view it. Run little doe. Enjoy your life. Run.

OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!OHMYFUCKINGGOD!

Okay, now I feel better, so here's what just happened. Someone had a problem with a computer that was kind of our fault because the printed dumped their print job before it actually printed, which happens regularly if you press the buttons too fast.

And we have computer reservation software to manage use, and there weren't going to be any computers available for 20 minutes so they could reprint that document. Since I'm so important and powerful, I bypassed a reservation so I could get them on a computer immediately and resend the document.

And I asked if the document was in her email, and she answered, yes.
And I said, "okay, log into your mail."
And she sits down and says, "I have to get there through here...."

And she puts google.com into the address bar. And when Google opens, she searches for AOL and then clicks the first search result to go to her AOL mail. She used Google to get to AOL.

Now, we know that people are stupid or ignorant or whatever you want to call them. But usually we can't quantify just how stupid. This little display revealed that people are exactly twice as stupid as they should be. 2XStupid.

As a scientist (yes, librarianship is a science), I was struck dumb by this discovery. G-o-o-g-l-e is six letters and A-O-L is only three. So she typed six letters to get to a place where she could then enter three more letters. Oh, wait!!!! That means she was more stupid. 3xStupid. The entire six-letter Google trip was entirely six-letters too many.

I know many wouldn't be surprised by this, but I try very hard to avoid witnessing stupid. I turn away when I see it coming. But this was stupid out of nowhere.

I've calmed down since. But at that moment, I was blinded. Actually blinded. It was like my brain tried to protect me; too late, but it tried.

But know now, for it has been proved: people are exactly three times more stupid than you'd expect. (Or two times, whatever, because my math sucks.)

File under "stupid people"

This is only slightly library-related since it involves a library worker. I don't know how I feel about having one of those jobs that needs to be mentioned whenever an incident happens:

• librarian wounded in shoot-out over over-the-counter drugs, says ointment was for his mother
• librarian suspected of ostrich rustling, says ostriches "followed me home"
• librarian faints over meeting Lance Kerwin ("Oh, my God, it's James at 15!" Don't judge. You would have fainted, too.)

You never see the jobs of dry cleaners or dental hygienists or professional bowlers mentioned, but journalists are continually surprised that librarians seem to ever do anything besides check in books.

So here's the story.

Some TV and/or news person in North Carolina named "Tom Campbell" says, "Immigration witch hunt must end." Here's my first criticism, Tom: witch hunts are good WHEN THEY FIND WITCHES. In this case of illegal immigration, you can't seem to swing a crucifix in this country without causing some witch to burst into flames. (Boy, was that a weak metaphor, or what?)

But, to remind everyone, here is what happened:
a person in this country illegally was caught using the identity of a dead person to get health care. Now, many believe that health care records are sacred and no government agency should have the power to search health records to find illegal immigrants.

But let's make this easy for everyone to understand.

• The librarian in question was stealing another person's identity.
• And that person is already dead.
• And the illegal immigrant was using that stolen identity of a dead person to apply for health care.
• Dead person: health care.

You don't think someone should notice that? You think the government, which is notoriously blind to most illegal activity in this country, should also ignore this crime? Even when the criminal is this stupid? When you basically stand up and say, "Look at me! Look at how I am breaking the law!" and society ignores you, then we have a problem. But when you attract the same attention as any other dead person who applies for health care, then what the hell did you expect?

"There is also the story of an illegal immigrant stopped at 2 a.m. in the morning, driving without a driver's license in a car with illegal plates. Whisked away to jail, her three children, ranging in age from 14 to 6, were left alone beside the road for eight hours."

Yes, it's wrong for Immigration or the police to leave children unsupervised and unprotected on the side of the road, but law enforcement can't be expected to arrest people only when it's convenient for the suspect. Who do you think these people are, former NFL running back's suspected of murder?

"We afford thugs in drive-by shootings more rights than we are affording these here illegally." Again, "I am not a lawyer," nor have I read the Bill of Rights, except for the part that encourages me to purchase surplus Russian-made amphibious military personnel carriers off the Internet, but I'd like to think that citizens of a nation have more rights than non-citizens, that legal residents have more freedoms than illegal residents.

He adds, "This is reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Hitler's reign of terror.." I don't remember that the Jews were in Germany illegally. Tom Campbell seems to think that Jews, by their very existence, were breaking the law. "It is impossible to believe that we started a revolution on the premise that every person has rights,..." No, Tom, we started a revolution in the country on the premise that every "property owner" has rights.

And Tom, you might believe that since Hitler signed the "final solution" to exterminate Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals, that those groups were, technically, breaking the law by still continuing to breathe, but you should not, as a rational human being, ever compare the situation in Nazi Germany to any arrest of any person, unless that arrest leads to 8 million unrelated murders.

"Tom Campbell is creator/host of NC SPIN, a weekly statewide television discussion of N.C. issues airing Sundays at 6:30 a.m. on WILM-TV."

Whew! It seems Tom is on local North Carolina TV at 6:30 a.m. on Sundays, so it's not likely that anyone will hear his opinions, thanks for that.

Tie Laces to Reduce Tripping

I see that there are strings dangling from my shoes which interfere with my walking when I wear them. I've been told that these strings, or laces, ought to be tied into a knot or bow to help hold my shoes on my feet.

At first I resisted this advice because I don't always want my shoes on my feet. Like when I take a shower, I would want to remove my shoes first. But I'm told that these knots or bows are not permanent and I should untie them and retie them each time I wear my shoes.

I know it sounds crazy, but it works. Tying shoe laces is easy; anyone can do it.

No more tripping for me when performing open-heart surgery!

"Over, under, in and out. That's what shoe-tying's all about." -Principal S. Skinner.

[my contribution to Lifehacker .]

So, poor people are stupid.

It's just sad when a university spends money to make the poor and uneducated look stupid.

"...Tufts researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with 120 parents and observed their Web skills..." that showed ..."low SES (socio-economic status) parents are more likely to obtain information from dubious websites," but still feel confident that "the information they found was trustworthy."

When showing a preference for a search engine, 55 percent of high socio-economic group preferred Google but only 8 percent of low SES parents were knowledgeable enough to recognize the superiority of the googly. 36 percent of parents in the low socio-economic status preferred AOL and *feeding their children household chemicals (*my guess).

I'm glad to see that so many stupid parents can be found in Massachusetts.

But what's really interesting is that the money for the study was supplied by the William T. Grant Foundation for the above "stupid parent" study. And they seem to have lots more money. I don't know how much money could be involved for any of us, but there's money:
Q. What is the grant size for Major Grants?
A. Major Grants, with the exception of the RFP for Intervention Research, are usually in the range of $200,000 to $500,000 for the duration of the award.

The Foundation even provides software that calculates something or other, like I'd know what it is. But it sure looks researchy. And that all could mean big dollars for anyone who figures it out.

MORE ABOUT THE FOUNDATION’S CURRENT RESEARCH INTERESTS
The Foundation is interested in studies on youth’s settings, defined as the proximal environments in which youth experience daily life. The Foundation is interested particularly in schools and other youth-serving organizations as formal settings for youth. The Foundation also is interested in less formal settings such as neighborhoods, families, and peer groups.

I'm sure some of you help stupid people every day. So why not collect that data into a formal study. Now, the stupid Massachusetts parents already got hogged up by these researchers, but I bet there are lots more stupid groups out there. But remember, this has to relate to youth and youth settings. I just wonder how that might apply to libraries... hmmm...

Oh, and remember, if you want to get your proposal accepted, don't call the subjects "stupid." Use something like "lacking essential skills." I think you get more money that way.

FBI violates rights, says laywer

Martin (the lawyer) said one of the FBI officials sat down at the (library) computer Ahmed used and, utilizing the history function of the computer, viewed and made a record of the Web pages and e-mail addresses that had been accessed by Ahmed.

Ok. Umm. I don't know how to explain this, but viewing the history on a computer is what everyone does. If the library didn't use some administrative setting to flush the history and cookies between users, then all history is fair game. This is not a violation of privacy by the government. This is a function of people who are too stupid to delete their history, and a position of the library that the history and cookies are not important enough to delete between users.

Kids don't understand the Internet, and now lawyers, and worse still, accused terrorists don't understand how the Internet works. Browser history, cookies and temp files are the same as garbage; again, IANAL, but legally, they should be the same as garbage.

You need to watch what the hell you're doing on the Internet. And If you don't log out of your email and someone else is able to access your mail, it's not their fault that you are an idiot. And it's not their fault that read your mail. Or that I used your account to send threatening messages to George Clooney. Damn your handsomeness, George Clooney.

What's right or wrong with Wikipedia?

It's nice of Wikipedia to have an entry on Wikipedia.

As I read the entry, I came across this criticism:

"The site has also been criticized for...favoring consensus over
credentials in its editorial process..."

I don't know what Wikipedia's current editorial process is, but I think it's pretty open, allowing any registered user to post and/or edit any entry. And then it would be up to any one of the rest of us to correct that entry or make a claim that's it's inaccurate or complete bullshit.

This is the core of the democratic process. Present an idea and allow the masses to judge its value. And this is what seems to be good about Wikipedia. The people decide what is right or wrong.

And this is the state of much of the Internet. The people decide. If I blog something and you blog something and others blog similar somethings, the Internet will become filled with our ideas. And if we say similar things, then similar ideas will dominate.

Now I trust my own level of susceptibility to stating crap. But how can I be sure that you don't say complete crap? And if you or I have more free time to post our crap, then won't the Internet just be filled with your or my crap? Even if your intentions are good, are you or I qualified to load the Internet with crap?

We like to think of a hierarchical chain of knowledge, from the student to the teacher to the expert. But what if the opinions of students dominate: are masses of students qualified to make decisions in this democracy when obvious experts are ignored?

This seems to be the root problem with the Internet and Wikipedia. Is consensus of opinion good enough to help us make decisions?

How do you control information? Do you limit what is known, or, do you dilute the known with crap until the general understanding of everything is wrong? ...In other words, is it possible to use Wikipedia or Google or any other popular informational sources to make people stupid?

The complaint of lack of credentials is what interests me most. If one is an expert and paid to publish ideas (research, facts, conclusions, opinions), then others must pay, in some form, to access those ideas. If Wikipedia is free, then the ideas posted there would be inferior to those of the expert.

But if consensus is the arbiter of knowledge; if Wikipedia can alter the perception of people to believe that consensus is the rule, then the argument is that consensus limits knowledge because people will accept what's "generally known" as an expert opinion. If we are all experts, is anyone an expert?

Does this make any sense?

Teachers oppose Wikipedia because they've seen the bell curve and know that consensus only equals about a grade of C+.

An educated person knows her own limitations and says, "I am not qualified to answer that, but here is an expert source."

Where do you go for answers? If we define that source as an expert, then Wikipedia and Google are the experts.

There is the dilemma. People want agreement. Reality demands agreement. If ten of us call something a "chair" and one calls it "my son" then that person might be labeled as crazy. But what if ten of us say that the Earth is flat and one says it's round? By consensus, the Earth will remain flat until, when? We fear this kind of power that consenus can wield because of the scale of information access on the Internet.
[editor's note: the chair is not my son.]

Does consensus guarantee that the Internet will eventually be filled with crap?

Rest easy and read with confidence the words written here: I am The Effing Librarian. And I guarantee that everything I say, regardless of consensus of opinion, is complete and utter crap.