In the AALL, most people seems to derive their own self-worths by the user-bases they are associated with. When people are introduced to each other, you can always see people calculate the differenence in the USN&WR ranking(Academic law librarians) or AmLaw/Vault ranking (Private Law Firm librarians) of their institutions. When I told them I am a county law librarian, other law librarians often have to ask me how many other librarians works for me or the size of my budget so they place me in that scale.

In theory, I should have more in common with the public librarians, and I did made an attempt. But I had found that for advocacy purposes, I am usually on the opposing end with either ALA or it’s local state chapter’s position.

It seems ALA government relation/advocacy are usually staffed by the “Social responsibilites roundtable/SIS” types. Rather than advocating for librarians/library staffs’s work condition, career sastification, etc. They actually often acted in oppossite direction. I was even told once that they felt their role is to advocate for their vision of library services, not necessary the due paying libraries/librarians.

For example, I had give up having our state library association to advocate for adoption of mental health reform so more people will get proper treatment:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kendra%27s_Law

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Laura%27s_Law

Talking to people in the government relation/advoacy committee, you got a impression that any reform of the mental health issue is going to result in the bad old days of institutionalization. When the realities is that the status quo is inhumane, and benefiting no one.

I often feel that I get more benefit out my association with our local chapter of National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, than any professional library association, especially during the last year’s ADA amendment process. I feel I got timely updates, explainations, advices, and sincere lobbying attempt to find a more balanced approach early in the legislative process.

I became a librarian because I admired the potential nobility of service it offered and viewed it as a good fit for my interests, life experience and personal convictions. I never saw librarianship simply as a place of refuge for folks who failed in other endeavors. There are folks in the profession who fit that stereotype, but to broadbrush an entire profession (or portions thereof) in that way is, I believe, mean-spirited, and narrow-minded and incorrect.

I worked for fifteen years in a special/corporate settings and swore for years that I’d never “go public” – who wants to deal with homeless people, the sanity-challenged, people trying to learn how to use email for the first time, story hours, surly middle-schoolers or hostile high school kids?

But after fifteen year I moved, voluntarily, into public librarianship in an attempt to find a way to use my work/life experiences and skills in a way that more directly benefits the public good. So far so good. It’s not necessarily better where I am now, but it’s better for me.

I’ve struggled with funding in both settings as a result of the economy. I’ve seen staffs dwindle in both settings even as workload increases. That’s today’s reality; get over it and deal with it. Things change and those who cling stubbornly to old ways get washed down the river.
I do not nor have I ever had anything against special/corporate librarians. I enjoyed the work for the most part while I was there. I was simply burned out on my workplace and my role in it. I wanted to do something different. The change was more about me than about special/corporate vs. public.

As a special/corporate librarian (a newspaper librarian, actually), I was struck by the differences between myself, my work, and that of other special/corporate librarians. There seemed to be less commonality among SLA members than I’ve found between the work I do now and that of even academic or school librarians. (Perhaps part of the advocacy problems facing SLA today are a result of the varied work settings and missions among those who make up its membership – now THERE’S a “big tent” for you).

But is one type of librarianship (special/corporate, public, academic, school) BETTER than the other? That’s really a totally objective call and one that is determined by who we are as individuals at any given time.

Overall, I’ve enjoyed my time as a LIBRARIAN and have found rewards in both the public and corporate sectors because…well, I like being a librarian. No matter what setting I work in, I find satisfaction in helping people find the information and resources they need (for whatever reason they need it). Maybe we just need to acknowledge that THAT’s the big tent. And if you are unhappy there, you’ve probably chosen the wrong profession.

so you all say that most librarians share common interests. but the truth is that it’s a dog eat dog world when it comes to getting recognition from our masters and getting treats.

just take a look at the “ebook bill of rights,” itself. you have 2 librarians who post this in February, but you also have these people, http://readersbillofrights.info/, who apparently have been doing this for a while, “we’ve been working on a similar project that we call the Readers’ Bill of Rights for Digital Books http://readersbillofrights.info/ which covers many of the same issues that you’ve outlined above.”

where’s the tent?

why don’t the current writers join under the tent with these other writers to create one single movement? would the current team defer back to the others? or even go back to http://waybackmachine.org/20010101000000*/http://www.geocities.com/bibliofuture/ … 2001 for an early attempt at ereader independence?

the point was that the moment was right to get noticed and some people took the advantage. but I’ll believe in the tent when I see the tent. but right now, I see at least 2 tents.

all libraries are the same when it comes to survival. we share one tent when the weather is good and money is plentiful, but when the funding is short and the weather is threatening, we’re all running out to find our own shelter. watch to see what happens to the tent if S. 493 is passed and hundreds of libraries need to replace that money.

you could also cite the ALA. and you can ask 10 librarians about their opinions of the ALA as a big tent, and you would get 100 reasons on how it fails.

I’ve never seen any library tent. We have local communities that refuse to pay taxes for public library services but their residents still come over to use the libraries. I have peers who refuse to share their work with other librarians, forcing us to recreate the same work all over gain. libraries and librarians are in competition for resources and for recognition.

there is no tent.

I often find I have more in common with business professionals than other librarians.

What if the next move of other, more academic, publishers is to limit access to e-books in a way similar to HarperCollins? What if an e-book could be accessed or viewed, analogous to circulating, as I see it, 26 times? What would happen to our distance learning program then? What about e-books placed on reserve to be accessed via course management software? A class of 20 students wouldn’t last half a semester under that regime, and thus the library’s budget wouldn’t, either. So you see, Annoyed Librarian, we’re all in this together, we’re not so dissimilar. Let’s hang together instead of separately on this issue.