The fundamental mission of the Douglas County Libraries is to promote literacy and lifelong learning.
What results from such advocacy? Here's one of them: productive citizens.
Recently, I asked Kate Prestwood, who heads up Douglas County Libraries adult literacy efforts, to give me an update on the status of the program.
She responded with some wonderful stories both from tutors (volunteers we train to be teachers) and students. Some of our tutors are paired with students working on basic English or GEDs (a high school equivalency certificate). But we have a surprising number of international students.
One of them, of Asian origin, came to us because she was working at a big box retail store, and suspected that her use of English was a little odd. Thanks to volunteer help, she's passed a test to start moving up the retail chain's corporate ladder. These days, she addresses customers "politely." (Learning to speak English from watching television might well build up a repertoire of impolite expressions.)
A Russian aerobics instructor (who is also working another full time job) noted her increasing fluency in English. To thank her tutor, she made a custom CD of her favorite Russian music.
Another student, from eastern Europe, is working with her tutor to launch a new business. It's going well. And because of the student's growing confidence, she says, she now is starting to slip out from under the thumb of an overbearing mother-in-law.
Another woman, from South Korea, writes proudly (and grammatically!) about how she has put both of her daughters through American colleges, and finally has time to invest in her own education.
The consistent story of our students is this: through often extraordinary and inspiring work, they better themselves, they contribute to our society, they give their children a better life. And often, they invite their tutors to stand beside them on the proud day when they become American citizens.
Right now, we have 101 people matched with a tutor. Some tutors have more than one student. Others are still waiting to be paired up, although we have 80 students waiting for tutors, too. The disconnect here is mainly one of schedules. Many of the folks looking for tutors have work, school, or kids, and may be available, for instance, only on Tuesdays at 3:45 p.m.
Bottom line: we need more volunteers.
We also need volunteers interested in facilitating our Practice Your English groups at Highlands Ranch and Castle Rock. Parker has a great group of volunteers, and the Saturdays are always covered. But at Highlands Ranch and Castle Rock, we have a shortage. This is a group setting, not the usual one-on-one. But some people actually prefer this setting.
It is a privilege to live in this country. If you'd like not only to enrich your own life, but make a profound difference in the life of someone else, please consider volunteering your time in the service of literacy.
You can reach Kate Prestwood at 303-791-7323. Call today.
------------
LaRue's Views are his own.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
August 19, 2010 - library teams with election office
A few years ago now, the Douglas County Libraries consolidated most of our phone lines into a central Contact Center. This did two things for us. First, it let us get rid of a lot of annoying sounds and service interruptions in the public areas. Our staff can concentrate on the people who show up in our buildings.
The second thing was that it let us really monitor the number and type of calls we receive, bringing in a lot of eye-opening data. That data has helped us manage a host of operations more efficiently.
Our Contact Center people do more than answer the phones, though. They manage a number of projects, the most recent of which was our team-up with the Douglas County Elections Office. In brief, the county paid us to answer the phone for that office – and provided us the training to do so. This is our second year of providing this service.
The 2010 Douglas County election season officially opened on July 19th. Primary ballots were mailed out and voter questions began pouring in.
From 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday July 19th to August 10th, our Contact Center was the first line of response for election questions. In the first two days we received as many calls as we did in the entire 2009 election.
We answered 4-5 calls an hour and were able to assist 86% of the voters who called us. (We passed along to the election office the ones that stumped us.) All together, election calls accounted for 15% of our total volume for the election period.
What kinds of things did voters ask us? The common questions included: address corrections, how to affiliate with a party, and how much postage a ballot requires.
Voters didn't have to do anything special to get us. Voters dialed the usual election number, and we just switched it over to our people automatically. Our staff could tell how many people were calling, and which line they were coming in on. We kept careful track of statistics.
Having one of the more efficient contact centers around, I'm pleased to report that we are able to provide the service at a very competitive price. Each call costs the election office 87¢ to answer. The library can do it for 50¢. By tracking such things as "dropped calls" (calls that didn't get answered because they overwhelmed the available lines) we can also maintain much better than industry-standard rates for responsiveness.
Like a lot of businesses, the library has tightened up its expenditures. Using existing resources, we were able not only to provide high quality public information, but even to generate a modest amount of new revenue – at a cost that still saved money for the county.
I'd like to acknowledge not only the out-of-the-box thinking of our county elections people (and in particular, County Clerk Jack Arrowsmith), but also our Information Technology and Contact Center staff who made the process so seamless and effective.
I think the public appreciates knowing that independent arms of the government look for ways not only to provide useful service but also to save money together.
-----
LaRue's Views are his own.
The second thing was that it let us really monitor the number and type of calls we receive, bringing in a lot of eye-opening data. That data has helped us manage a host of operations more efficiently.
Our Contact Center people do more than answer the phones, though. They manage a number of projects, the most recent of which was our team-up with the Douglas County Elections Office. In brief, the county paid us to answer the phone for that office – and provided us the training to do so. This is our second year of providing this service.
The 2010 Douglas County election season officially opened on July 19th. Primary ballots were mailed out and voter questions began pouring in.
From 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday July 19th to August 10th, our Contact Center was the first line of response for election questions. In the first two days we received as many calls as we did in the entire 2009 election.
We answered 4-5 calls an hour and were able to assist 86% of the voters who called us. (We passed along to the election office the ones that stumped us.) All together, election calls accounted for 15% of our total volume for the election period.
What kinds of things did voters ask us? The common questions included: address corrections, how to affiliate with a party, and how much postage a ballot requires.
Voters didn't have to do anything special to get us. Voters dialed the usual election number, and we just switched it over to our people automatically. Our staff could tell how many people were calling, and which line they were coming in on. We kept careful track of statistics.
Having one of the more efficient contact centers around, I'm pleased to report that we are able to provide the service at a very competitive price. Each call costs the election office 87¢ to answer. The library can do it for 50¢. By tracking such things as "dropped calls" (calls that didn't get answered because they overwhelmed the available lines) we can also maintain much better than industry-standard rates for responsiveness.
Like a lot of businesses, the library has tightened up its expenditures. Using existing resources, we were able not only to provide high quality public information, but even to generate a modest amount of new revenue – at a cost that still saved money for the county.
I'd like to acknowledge not only the out-of-the-box thinking of our county elections people (and in particular, County Clerk Jack Arrowsmith), but also our Information Technology and Contact Center staff who made the process so seamless and effective.
I think the public appreciates knowing that independent arms of the government look for ways not only to provide useful service but also to save money together.
-----
LaRue's Views are his own.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
August 12, 2010 - expert thinking
In 2005 Philip Tetlock wrote a book called, "Expert Political Judgment: How Good is it? How can we know?"
To find out, he did something extraordinary. He went back and studied 50 years of writings by various media pundits and commentators who made predictions about politics and economics. Then he carefully tracked the results.
What did he find?
Experts don't do so good.
They were worse than random. As one reviewer noted: "Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world... are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys." It didn't make any difference if they were conservative or liberal.
The reasons for this appalling performance are many.
Reasonable people with modest opinions aren't that much fun to read. People who say outrageous things command more attention. But that doesn't mean they're right. In fact, the wilder they get, they less likely that is.
It's a twist on the old "hedgehog versus the fox" fable. The simple hedgehog knows One Big Thing (how to roll up into a prickly ball and ignore outside threats). The clever fox knows many things.
Most experts are hedgehogs. They fall in love with their own perspectives and are impervious to all the evidence to the contrary. It becomes a kind of arrogance.
Or as H. L. Mencken once said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Foxes, on the other hand, are wary of big ideas that explain everything. They are less grandiose.
But foxes make better guesses about the future. The future is nuanced.
People get fooled by their own supposed expertise. They get deeper and deeper into arcane knowledge and think it really tells them something. But Tetlock concluded that more general perspectives - taking into account the information from multiple areas of study, and more than one perspective - gives people a better read on the likely future.
To find out, he did something extraordinary. He went back and studied 50 years of writings by various media pundits and commentators who made predictions about politics and economics. Then he carefully tracked the results.
What did he find?
Experts don't do so good.
They were worse than random. As one reviewer noted: "Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world... are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys." It didn't make any difference if they were conservative or liberal.
The reasons for this appalling performance are many.
Reasonable people with modest opinions aren't that much fun to read. People who say outrageous things command more attention. But that doesn't mean they're right. In fact, the wilder they get, they less likely that is.
It's a twist on the old "hedgehog versus the fox" fable. The simple hedgehog knows One Big Thing (how to roll up into a prickly ball and ignore outside threats). The clever fox knows many things.
Most experts are hedgehogs. They fall in love with their own perspectives and are impervious to all the evidence to the contrary. It becomes a kind of arrogance.
Or as H. L. Mencken once said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Foxes, on the other hand, are wary of big ideas that explain everything. They are less grandiose.
But foxes make better guesses about the future. The future is nuanced.
People get fooled by their own supposed expertise. They get deeper and deeper into arcane knowledge and think it really tells them something. But Tetlock concluded that more general perspectives - taking into account the information from multiple areas of study, and more than one perspective - gives people a better read on the likely future.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
August 5, 2010 - why do you think that?
I've written in the past about what we should do when we learn that something we have long believed turns out not to be true. (In brief, strive to change those beliefs to be more in line with reality. Doesn't that sound easy?)
But where do these beliefs come from in the first place? Why do we believe them?
On a personal level, according to the brain and linguistical research work of George Lakoff and others (see "Don't Think of an Elephant," and "The Political Brain") it all comes down to "framing."
Have you ever heard an argument where suddenly it's clear that one side is about to lose? Their evidence in tatters, their rhetoric shattered, you imagine that surely they will back down ... but no.
It was never about the evidence.
When you knock down the supposed reason for their belief, another one immediately takes its place. The frame - which only sees what it is convinced must be true - remains.
Framing is really nothing more than a metaphor, a story that begins with the body, and winds up as a filter for all we understand. For instance, the love of the mother for the child creates a literal sense of warmth in the child, a warmth centered in the heart. We believe it because we feel it.
From there, it's only a short hop to to saying that your heart belongs to your mother - until, of course, someone else generates even more heat.
On a political level, it gets a little more complicated. But maybe not much more.
Lakoff argues that both conservatives and liberals base their political philosophies on the idea of the family, that earliest and most formative of social experiences.
Lakoff says that conservatives have the frame of the strict father. Liberals believe in the nurturing mother. Each of those frames, those stories, then plays out in a host of ways.
The strict father believes in right and wrong, reward and punishment. The nurturing mother believes in kindness and meanness, in learning and forgiveness. Those orientations can be directly tied to individual willingness to support law enforcement, or social services.
In the political realm there is something else: repetition over time.
I was also doing some reading about the early development of think tanks. (See William F. Buckley's "The John Birch Society and me," and the Heritage Foundation's "The origins of the modern American conservative movement," both articles freely available on the Web.)
Following the failure of Barry Goldwater's run for the presidency in 1964, conservatives of the time adopted a simple approach: put together a list of core beliefs. Keep talking about them. Set up institutions that could be contacted by media looking for quotes on "the other side."
The ascendancy of the conservative mindset, the reflexive belief that "lowering taxes" is good, no matter what they pay for, can be directly attributed to that strategy. It took almost half a century of more or less consistently applied effort. Changing beliefs takes time.
So why do we believe what we believe?
Because we try to make sense of the world. Because we are hooked by good stories, and the stories we hear early enough, and often enough, begin to sound right.
Some of those story tellers are "experts." And next week, I'll tackle this question: can they be trusted?
----
LaRue's Views are his own.
But where do these beliefs come from in the first place? Why do we believe them?
On a personal level, according to the brain and linguistical research work of George Lakoff and others (see "Don't Think of an Elephant," and "The Political Brain") it all comes down to "framing."
Have you ever heard an argument where suddenly it's clear that one side is about to lose? Their evidence in tatters, their rhetoric shattered, you imagine that surely they will back down ... but no.
It was never about the evidence.
When you knock down the supposed reason for their belief, another one immediately takes its place. The frame - which only sees what it is convinced must be true - remains.
Framing is really nothing more than a metaphor, a story that begins with the body, and winds up as a filter for all we understand. For instance, the love of the mother for the child creates a literal sense of warmth in the child, a warmth centered in the heart. We believe it because we feel it.
From there, it's only a short hop to to saying that your heart belongs to your mother - until, of course, someone else generates even more heat.
On a political level, it gets a little more complicated. But maybe not much more.
Lakoff argues that both conservatives and liberals base their political philosophies on the idea of the family, that earliest and most formative of social experiences.
Lakoff says that conservatives have the frame of the strict father. Liberals believe in the nurturing mother. Each of those frames, those stories, then plays out in a host of ways.
The strict father believes in right and wrong, reward and punishment. The nurturing mother believes in kindness and meanness, in learning and forgiveness. Those orientations can be directly tied to individual willingness to support law enforcement, or social services.
In the political realm there is something else: repetition over time.
I was also doing some reading about the early development of think tanks. (See William F. Buckley's "The John Birch Society and me," and the Heritage Foundation's "The origins of the modern American conservative movement," both articles freely available on the Web.)
Following the failure of Barry Goldwater's run for the presidency in 1964, conservatives of the time adopted a simple approach: put together a list of core beliefs. Keep talking about them. Set up institutions that could be contacted by media looking for quotes on "the other side."
The ascendancy of the conservative mindset, the reflexive belief that "lowering taxes" is good, no matter what they pay for, can be directly attributed to that strategy. It took almost half a century of more or less consistently applied effort. Changing beliefs takes time.
So why do we believe what we believe?
Because we try to make sense of the world. Because we are hooked by good stories, and the stories we hear early enough, and often enough, begin to sound right.
Some of those story tellers are "experts." And next week, I'll tackle this question: can they be trusted?
----
LaRue's Views are his own.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
July 29, 2010 - here come the homelanders
One of the talks I most enjoy giving is about Strauss and Howe's generational theory of American history. Their work ("Generations: the history of America's future," and "the Fourth Turning") details the interactions of four distinct generational types. These types follow each other repeatedly, making a predictable cycle of historical moods.
When I started giving the talk, I focused on the four generations then in the work place: the Silents (born 1925-1942) occupying senior management positions, Boomers (born 1943-1964) beginning to move into those positions, Gen-Xers (born 1964-1981) on the front lines, and a sprinkle of Millennials (born 1982-2001), just starting.
I gave the talk last week, and guess what? The Silents, at least in that room, were gone - all retired. Boomers and Gen-Xers were in charge, and the Millennials had arrived in force.
I have been giving this talk for a long time, it seems.
But what about the next generation?
Strauss and Howe have given them a name: the "Homelanders." This is the generation raised in the shadow of 9/11, much as the Silent generation was raised in the shadow of World War II.
My audience found the name sobering.
Generations are forged as the result of two factors. One of them is world events. Every generation has unique memories of shared experiences: the death of JFK, the moon walk, VietNam, the Challenger explosion, the Berlin Wall coming down, Columbine, etc.
But the second factor is the pendulum swing of parenting styles. Moms and dads loosen oversight of their offspring to the point of near abandonment, and their children grow up to tighten the oversight of their children to the point of suffocation.
The Silent and Homelander generations, history suggests, fall at the suffocation end of the cycle.
Evidence?
I think the clearest example happened back in April of 2008. As Lenore Skenazy wrote in an editorial, "Why I let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone" for the New York Sun, she left her son in downtown New York's Bloomingdales because he wanted to see if he could get home, all by himself, by subway and bus. He did, too. It took about twenty minutes. But he was "ecstatic with independence," said his mom.
But that's not the end of the story. Skenazy wrote, "Half the the people I've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids."
I heard Skenazy speak on talk radio shortly after the story. And there were two threads. One of them was sharply accusatory. How would she have felt if something had happened to her son? Terrible, she said, but the crime statistics around Bloomingdales were roughly comparable to Boise, Idaho, and nobody seems to think Boise children need to be carted around in Hummers.
The second thread was interesting. People called in to report their first moment of real independence: riding a bus somewhere. A bike trip across a busy street. The first camp or road trip.
Those were the moments that began to define a sense of self, that celebrated the birth of autonomy. It was important. It meant something.
Parents communicate to their children a vision of the world. Sometimes, that vision is colored by confidence; sometimes, by fear.
But we can be sure of one thing. The next generation will conclude what every generation concludes: they weren't raised right.
---
LaRue's Views are his own.
When I started giving the talk, I focused on the four generations then in the work place: the Silents (born 1925-1942) occupying senior management positions, Boomers (born 1943-1964) beginning to move into those positions, Gen-Xers (born 1964-1981) on the front lines, and a sprinkle of Millennials (born 1982-2001), just starting.
I gave the talk last week, and guess what? The Silents, at least in that room, were gone - all retired. Boomers and Gen-Xers were in charge, and the Millennials had arrived in force.
I have been giving this talk for a long time, it seems.
But what about the next generation?
Strauss and Howe have given them a name: the "Homelanders." This is the generation raised in the shadow of 9/11, much as the Silent generation was raised in the shadow of World War II.
My audience found the name sobering.
Generations are forged as the result of two factors. One of them is world events. Every generation has unique memories of shared experiences: the death of JFK, the moon walk, VietNam, the Challenger explosion, the Berlin Wall coming down, Columbine, etc.
But the second factor is the pendulum swing of parenting styles. Moms and dads loosen oversight of their offspring to the point of near abandonment, and their children grow up to tighten the oversight of their children to the point of suffocation.
The Silent and Homelander generations, history suggests, fall at the suffocation end of the cycle.
Evidence?
I think the clearest example happened back in April of 2008. As Lenore Skenazy wrote in an editorial, "Why I let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone" for the New York Sun, she left her son in downtown New York's Bloomingdales because he wanted to see if he could get home, all by himself, by subway and bus. He did, too. It took about twenty minutes. But he was "ecstatic with independence," said his mom.
But that's not the end of the story. Skenazy wrote, "Half the the people I've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids."
I heard Skenazy speak on talk radio shortly after the story. And there were two threads. One of them was sharply accusatory. How would she have felt if something had happened to her son? Terrible, she said, but the crime statistics around Bloomingdales were roughly comparable to Boise, Idaho, and nobody seems to think Boise children need to be carted around in Hummers.
The second thread was interesting. People called in to report their first moment of real independence: riding a bus somewhere. A bike trip across a busy street. The first camp or road trip.
Those were the moments that began to define a sense of self, that celebrated the birth of autonomy. It was important. It meant something.
Parents communicate to their children a vision of the world. Sometimes, that vision is colored by confidence; sometimes, by fear.
But we can be sure of one thing. The next generation will conclude what every generation concludes: they weren't raised right.
---
LaRue's Views are his own.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
July 22, 2010 - petitions
It was just a matter of time.
Libraries generate a lot of traffic - from 1,000 to 2,000 people a day depending on the library's size. Our patrons represent a good cross-section of the community.
Library users tend to be engaged in other ways. For instance, many of them are registered to vote.
So it's no surprise that the petition-gatherers have found us.
As it happens, free speech is one of the core values of the public library. Advocating for various issues, asking for signatures or donations for political causes, is a whole category of free speech, and clearly protected by the United States Constitution.
Of course, there are two kinds of petition-gatherers: some are respectful and polite, and others are pushy and argumentative.
For a long time, the library's general procedure has been this: you need to let us know you're here, you have to stand outside (not inside) the library, you can't block passage either into or out of the library, and you can't harass our customers.
Just asking somebody to sign a petition is not harassment. Let me emphasize this point: all any library patron has to say is "no thanks," and keeping walking. It's a useful skill to develop.
If the gatherer keeps following you, berates you, grabs you, or stands between you and the door, that's harassment. When that happens, we'll kick them off the property, at least. Just let us know.
The library doesn't have anything to do with who shows up. Their presence does not imply our endorsement. Not too long ago, we had people gathering signatures for this fall's Amendments 60 and 61, and Proposition 101, whose provisions would shut down libraries all across Colorado. I think, personally, that's a really bad idea.
But support for free speech doesn't just mean "speech you agree with." Lively political debate, informed with current and relevant information, is mostly a good thing. Libraries happily supply intellectual ammunition to both sides of nearly any issue.
But as the petitioners get more common, so too do various unpleasant incidents. I saw one guy talk a young woman out of $5 she clearly didn't want to give. One pair of petitioners created a subtle blockade in front of the door. One guy demanded that we supply him with a table and chair. (No.)
We can't supervise these people every moment.
On the other hand, we can place a few reasonable limits: we can constrain them to a particular location, well away from the front door. We can limit how much time they have for a particular cause, and we can shoo them away when they break the rules.
So the library board is considering these options. We may well create some marked off zones for petition-gatherers to congregate. We may have to establish a limit, a maximum hours per cause per week just to make sure that everybody gets a chance.
If you have thoughts about this, feel free to email me at jlarue @ dclibraries.org. Our concern is to both ensure the constitutional right of expression, but also to preserve your right to enjoy the library without having to run a gauntlet every time.
Meanwhile, advocates for causes might do well to remember that obnoxious behavior, in-your-face rudeness, turns people AGAINST your cause.
Be polite.
Libraries generate a lot of traffic - from 1,000 to 2,000 people a day depending on the library's size. Our patrons represent a good cross-section of the community.
Library users tend to be engaged in other ways. For instance, many of them are registered to vote.
So it's no surprise that the petition-gatherers have found us.
As it happens, free speech is one of the core values of the public library. Advocating for various issues, asking for signatures or donations for political causes, is a whole category of free speech, and clearly protected by the United States Constitution.
Of course, there are two kinds of petition-gatherers: some are respectful and polite, and others are pushy and argumentative.
For a long time, the library's general procedure has been this: you need to let us know you're here, you have to stand outside (not inside) the library, you can't block passage either into or out of the library, and you can't harass our customers.
Just asking somebody to sign a petition is not harassment. Let me emphasize this point: all any library patron has to say is "no thanks," and keeping walking. It's a useful skill to develop.
If the gatherer keeps following you, berates you, grabs you, or stands between you and the door, that's harassment. When that happens, we'll kick them off the property, at least. Just let us know.
The library doesn't have anything to do with who shows up. Their presence does not imply our endorsement. Not too long ago, we had people gathering signatures for this fall's Amendments 60 and 61, and Proposition 101, whose provisions would shut down libraries all across Colorado. I think, personally, that's a really bad idea.
But support for free speech doesn't just mean "speech you agree with." Lively political debate, informed with current and relevant information, is mostly a good thing. Libraries happily supply intellectual ammunition to both sides of nearly any issue.
But as the petitioners get more common, so too do various unpleasant incidents. I saw one guy talk a young woman out of $5 she clearly didn't want to give. One pair of petitioners created a subtle blockade in front of the door. One guy demanded that we supply him with a table and chair. (No.)
We can't supervise these people every moment.
On the other hand, we can place a few reasonable limits: we can constrain them to a particular location, well away from the front door. We can limit how much time they have for a particular cause, and we can shoo them away when they break the rules.
So the library board is considering these options. We may well create some marked off zones for petition-gatherers to congregate. We may have to establish a limit, a maximum hours per cause per week just to make sure that everybody gets a chance.
If you have thoughts about this, feel free to email me at jlarue @ dclibraries.org. Our concern is to both ensure the constitutional right of expression, but also to preserve your right to enjoy the library without having to run a gauntlet every time.
Meanwhile, advocates for causes might do well to remember that obnoxious behavior, in-your-face rudeness, turns people AGAINST your cause.
Be polite.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
July 15, 2010 - what the nation needs
Recently libraries were in the news in Colorado and the nation. But it was weird news.
The first case was Peter Boyles, who got very exercised that some newly built libraries in Adams County didn't have flags flying in front of them. My first thought was, Good for him. What a great opportunity to encourage citizens to step up and show their civic pride.
It happens that I know something about the situation in Adams County. They've done a wonderful job of building their inviting new libraries on very tight budgets; outside improvements and landscaping happen last.
When we opened our Highlands Ranch Library in 2000, the local Rotary club underwrote a flagpole, and then-state-senator John Evans got us a flag that had flown over the nation's capital. At our Philip S. Miller Library, a library volunteer and Board member, Sue Meacham, sponsored the flagpole in memory of her husband, Fred. That's what community involvement looks like.
But of course that wasn't where the radio pundit was going. No, the main findings seem to be that first, public buildings are required by law to have flags and flagpoles! (Um. No, they're not. Look it up.) Second, what outrageous proof that librarians were not patriots! (Wrong again.)
It happens that about 80% of the libraries in Colorado do have flags and flagpoles. The ones that don't, tend to be in rented buildings, or are part of municipal complexes where there's a flag flying, but usually in front of city hall.
The bottom line: instead of taking the opportunity to build civic pride by engaging citizens, this was all about destroying civic pride by seeking to undermine the reputation of one of our nation's most effective and credible public institutions.
In the name of patriotism?
The second new item was a Fox News piece in Chicago, questioning whether public libraries were just a waste of taxpayer dollars. No particular evidence was presented that they were. But several imputations were made: for one thing, libraries are a really dated idea, going back to 1900 B.C. (It's kind of like another really old idea called "the alphabet.")
For another, they asked, who even uses the library? Based on one day's video shoot at one location, more people were using Internet stations than were browsing shelves for books. Besides, they said, Illinois is on the verge of fiscal collapse, and here's a great way to save money!
It may well be that TV news people don't use libraries. If they did, they'd notice that library parking lots are packed, in Douglas County even more so than Chicago, and Chicago has some of the busiest libraries in the world. And never mind that we have plenty of data that shows library Internet use grows other kinds of library use (checkouts, reference questions, program attendance), too.
I'd also like to point out that closing every library in the state of Illinois wouldn't do much to help the state's budget, since most libraries get their modest funding locally.
But I think some people who think of themselves as patriots and fiscal conservatives are missing the point here.
To hear radio and TV people tell it, the problem is that people can't seem to find a sufficient number of American flags, or just aren't spending enough time sitting in front of their radios and televisions.
These aren't problems that worry me much. Here's one that does: today's generation of children, according to numerous studies, is the first in the history of our nation to be growing up /less/ well educated than its predecessor. That's in sharp contrast to, for instance, China.
That fact has sweeping implications for our country's future in a time of increasing global competitiveness.
You want to talk patriotism? How about the radical idea that fostering the skills and exercise of literacy, encouraging the populace to read, to gather and discuss, to get their facts right, to engage, and to build rather than destroy, is precisely what this nation needs.
------
LaRue's Views are his own.
The first case was Peter Boyles, who got very exercised that some newly built libraries in Adams County didn't have flags flying in front of them. My first thought was, Good for him. What a great opportunity to encourage citizens to step up and show their civic pride.
It happens that I know something about the situation in Adams County. They've done a wonderful job of building their inviting new libraries on very tight budgets; outside improvements and landscaping happen last.
When we opened our Highlands Ranch Library in 2000, the local Rotary club underwrote a flagpole, and then-state-senator John Evans got us a flag that had flown over the nation's capital. At our Philip S. Miller Library, a library volunteer and Board member, Sue Meacham, sponsored the flagpole in memory of her husband, Fred. That's what community involvement looks like.
But of course that wasn't where the radio pundit was going. No, the main findings seem to be that first, public buildings are required by law to have flags and flagpoles! (Um. No, they're not. Look it up.) Second, what outrageous proof that librarians were not patriots! (Wrong again.)
It happens that about 80% of the libraries in Colorado do have flags and flagpoles. The ones that don't, tend to be in rented buildings, or are part of municipal complexes where there's a flag flying, but usually in front of city hall.
The bottom line: instead of taking the opportunity to build civic pride by engaging citizens, this was all about destroying civic pride by seeking to undermine the reputation of one of our nation's most effective and credible public institutions.
In the name of patriotism?
The second new item was a Fox News piece in Chicago, questioning whether public libraries were just a waste of taxpayer dollars. No particular evidence was presented that they were. But several imputations were made: for one thing, libraries are a really dated idea, going back to 1900 B.C. (It's kind of like another really old idea called "the alphabet.")
For another, they asked, who even uses the library? Based on one day's video shoot at one location, more people were using Internet stations than were browsing shelves for books. Besides, they said, Illinois is on the verge of fiscal collapse, and here's a great way to save money!
It may well be that TV news people don't use libraries. If they did, they'd notice that library parking lots are packed, in Douglas County even more so than Chicago, and Chicago has some of the busiest libraries in the world. And never mind that we have plenty of data that shows library Internet use grows other kinds of library use (checkouts, reference questions, program attendance), too.
I'd also like to point out that closing every library in the state of Illinois wouldn't do much to help the state's budget, since most libraries get their modest funding locally.
But I think some people who think of themselves as patriots and fiscal conservatives are missing the point here.
To hear radio and TV people tell it, the problem is that people can't seem to find a sufficient number of American flags, or just aren't spending enough time sitting in front of their radios and televisions.
These aren't problems that worry me much. Here's one that does: today's generation of children, according to numerous studies, is the first in the history of our nation to be growing up /less/ well educated than its predecessor. That's in sharp contrast to, for instance, China.
That fact has sweeping implications for our country's future in a time of increasing global competitiveness.
You want to talk patriotism? How about the radical idea that fostering the skills and exercise of literacy, encouraging the populace to read, to gather and discuss, to get their facts right, to engage, and to build rather than destroy, is precisely what this nation needs.
------
LaRue's Views are his own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)