This has been a busy week, and there are a lot of things I wanted to write about, so this is a bit of a blogging roundup.
First, I was contacted by someone who’s been working against the idea that seed libraries are forms of agroterrorism. He saw last week’s post and wanted people to know that they could help fight the PA department of agriculture among others. Here’s a bit from the email:
We’re glad you wrote about the crackdown on the Simpson Seed Library. We thought regulators over-reached, so Shareable teamed up with the lawyers at the Sustainable Economies Law Center Center to find out:
Turns out, they likely did over-reach and there’s also an easy work around that this and other Pennsylvania seed libraries can use to operate within the law as a peer to peer seed exchanges.
Normally I don’t participate in advocacy like this, but it seemed relevant to the post, and I thought that move against the seed library was definitely overreaching. While I don’t want to plant any seeds myself, I like the idea of the seed libraries, and the claim that they’re potential targets for agroterrorists strikes me as silly.
More good news for public libraries is that someone in the Wall Street Journal actually defended them when comparing them to Amazon’s new Kindle
I don’t know why, but I always expect WSJ to take the “libraries are socialism” route. They must have let a guest contributor sneak in or something.
The piece is a good reminder that “libraries serve nobler purposes than just amassing vampire romances.” If only all librarians could remember that.
Given that it’s the WSJ, the article does end with a market twist: “The rise of paid subscription services is proof that there’s demand for what libraries can offer in our Internet era.”
It’s almost as if libraries provide a community service that either couldn’t be provided privately or could only be provided at greater cost than libraries spend now. Libraries: the original crowdsource for books. Ruminate on that.
And thus we discover that in the competition between the WSJ and Forbes as to which publication understands libraries and economic better, WSJ wins, unless the award is for most uninformed about both.
Finally, I have some news for you librarians looking for a job. A Kind Reader forwarded a job ad on to me, and it’s a doozy. Here’s the work:
Provide library services…, including reference and circulation services to students and faculty. Provide information literacy instruction to classes upon request. Assist in the development and implementation of library policies and procedures. Participate in the creation and dissemination of library information. Maintain library statistics. Other duties may be assigned. Daytime, weekend, and some evening hours required.
That doesn’t sound too bad! Oh, wait. Except it’s part-time, 19 hours/week. Combined with the “daytime, weekend, and some evening hours,” that likely means a chaotic work schedule and almost certainly no benefits, so don’t get sick or anything.
You also might be subject to a criminal background check, although the person who created this job seems to have passed one, so how thorough could it be?
All you need is an MLS and a minimum of one year’s experience. They’d also like “Experience teaching information literacy instruction, experience with online library databases, the most current computer applications, popular applications software in libraries, and work experience within a community or academic library.”
That doesn’t seem like too much to ask for a part-time $15/hour job, does it? That seems just the sort of situation someone with a graduate degree should be seeking, as opposed to someone with, say, a high school diploma.
I won’t tell you where it is. You’ll just have to track it down if you’re incredibly desperate. Serious professionals need not apply, but for a local unemployed librarian who just needs a little pin money, this would be perfect.