Tuesday, 10 September, 2002

"with us or against us": so very September tenth I recall that in the first stunned months after September 11, 2001, the phrase "that's so September 10th!" crept into our language. It was used derisively, the implication being that everything changed on September 11 and that any person, idea or thing which hadn't responded to the changed world was very "September 10th." This blog will be silent tomorrow on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks. There has been a lot of hype in the media about this first anniversary and I'm at the point where I am switching off. We all know what day it is tomorrow - we don't need to be reminded or told what to think about it. We don't need the memory of the victims to be exploited by crass commercialism or political manuevering. Many things were lost on September 11, 2001 - the magnitude of the human suffering defies description. Since then, Americans and the rest of the world have been told in no uncertain terms that "you are either with us or against us" - the "us" being the Bush administration. In my view, this statement is the essence of "September 10th" in the pejorative sense. It is backward, retrograde and completely fails to understand the complex nature of the world in the twenty-first century. It is a throw-back to the Cold War, McCarthyism and the Wild West. I repudiate this viewpoint entirely. I certainly do not support the dangerous encroachments into human rights and civil liberties which have occurred in the name of this endless "war against terrorism." But this does not mean that I support the terrorists. It angers me that anybody criticizing the government should have to do this type of back-pedalling! This "with us or against us" language is a self-serving and arbitrary line drawn into unsteady sand - and I think it must be ignored, so that we can find better answers to the tragedy on September 11, 2001. 5:12:38 PM    comment []

fight plagiarism with smarter questions? Got Cheaters? Ask New Questions. The Web puts answers to most questions -- not to mention ready-made term papers -- at students' fingertips. One educator says it's time to assign work that truly makes kids think. By Dustin Goot. [Wired News] I can see the author's point - better assignment questions would be more difficult to plagiarize and would also provide a better learning exercise. I think this will happen as educators catch up to their students and become aware of the plagiarism resources on the internet. On the other hand, plagiarists shouldn't be blaming the teacher for their misdeeds. Because plagiarism is generally easier to do now (despite the development of plagiarism detection strategies), students must be taught from day one that it is always wrong, no matter what. 3:57:54 PM    comment []

helpful resources about the OMB's dastardly plan to sell-out the information needs of taxpayers Gutting the Federal Depository Library Program?. Taking Out the GPO. The OMB says closing the GPO will save taxpayer money. Barbara Quint opines that not only will it cost taxpayers and libraries more money to obtain government documents, it will make them more difficult to find and track. [TVC Alert] This is (or should be) a hot topic for all librarians.  The current FDLP could be improved, but what the OMB proposes results in even more government information going missing. Here are some more links relating to this issue: The May 3 OMB Memoranda (PDF) ALA's Talking Points ALA's Washington Office Newsline (ALAWON) Update The Printing Industry's Response Mr Robert Sherman' (Director, GPO Office of Congressional & Public Affairs) Response to printing industry Testimony on behalf of ALA to the Joint Committee on Printing, July 10, 2002 (PDF) Links to all the testimony before the Joint Committe on Printing, July 10, 2002 Senate Report 107-209, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2003 (PDF); contains language opposing OMB's Memo on page 41 [Leah's Law Library Weblog] I just read Quint's article this morning. The whole situation is quite absurd. What a mighty step backwards for tax payers who need access to government documents.**fighting down the urge to go on an explosive political rant** 1:02:54 PM    comment []