How new words and Phrases come into being

Last week I realized that an email with a draft document I had sent to Dr. Z**** last year, … well, … it had never been commented on or returned or even acknowledged. Everyone in the library is aware of the fact that Dr. Z**** (a D.Ed., as you may suspect) rarely ever responds to emails, phone calls or any other form of electronic communication.  On this campus he has become legendary!

So I forwarded the draft to my boss in another email, this time referring to Dr. Z’s tendency, as they say, “to drop the ball.”  Unfortunately, I mangled the expression in the sentence:

“Here is another one of Dr. Z’s ball droppings” 

It was only after I sent the email that I realized just how nasty this sounded. I was not trying to imply that Dr. Z**** is a “teabagger” or anything else. I guess this is how the English language grows through mutation.

In the Library

          

The most dramatic change in libraries over the last 30 years is the shift from paper to electronic formats. While students are finding that quick access to information is, overall, a good development, this situation has reversed what has long been seen as the basic role of librarians. Where in the past we had to deal with a lack of access to information, the challenge now is access to too much information, much of it of a dubious quality. For example, after the crash of an airliner at San Francisco airport, a local television station pulled a list from the internet of the supposed Korean pilots. After the TV station had created a graphic and a news announcer began reading the names, only then did they finally begin to suspect that they were being pranked. The names “Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, and Bang Ding Ow” were not the real names of the pilots on the airliner.* The news reporters had, in the rush to find information, picked up and presented—on air—false data from the posting of an internet prankster.

This situation is far more difficult to deal with than our old problem: how to manage affordable access to the information needs of our educational programs. Now we have plenty of information, perhaps even too much information in some subject areas. And we have to figure out what is reliable and teach students how to avoid the joke sites, the product sales pitch sites, the self-serving propaganda, and the deliberate distortion of facts to suit a political agenda. It is a battle for truth. Some of these battles are fought on the pages of Wikipedia, where information is sometimes slanted and distorted. For example, when Sarah Palin made comments about Paul Revere’s Ride that were clearly wrong, some of her followers went to the Wikipedia page and altered the page so that her statements seemed less problematic. This rewriting of history brings to mind George Orwell’s 1984, where history was constantly being edited to suit the current political situation. Students need to learn to treat the internet with a very large dollop of skepticism.

For the typical college student, who has little life experience and a perhaps only a mediocre education in the K-12 system, separating the wheat from the chaff can be a daunting challenge. Based on the idea that “it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish” it is clear that a very important goal for the university is educating students on how to find reliable information and use it correctly. In terms of finding good information, the library has long managed the gathering, sorting, and accessing functions behind the scenes, through various Technical Services.

Unfortunately, the internet has punched a large hole in the dike that libraries once used to keep out the trash-filled waters. The floodgates are open, and a lot of bad information and deliberate misinformation is flowing in, largely because of wide-open internet access. Clearly outreach and reference services need to be overhauled to help stem the tide before the malaria sets in. Or at least we need to help manage the tide through a webpage and ILS system with lots of channels, locks, damns, pipes, and flood gates. Like the city of New Orleans, we are surrounded by waters that threaten to overwhelm the practice of information seeking. Bad information is often worse than no information.

We need a renewed commitment to real critical thinking, without giving in to the popular gimmicks of contemporary CritThink being pushed by some educators.** We need to move toward becoming a true Learning Commons. Probably the most effective use of our resources is to create a webpage that effectively leads students toward reliable information (books and journals) and diverts them away from junk information (loosely-defined Google searches).

*FYI, I am not related to Mr. Ho Lee Fuk.

** It was suggested, quite seriously, that a person should wander around the library and pass out free skittles to any student who was found studying. This would be along the same lines as the idea of using free pizza to lure students into the library. Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think. Student are either motived or not, and free skittles won’t change that fact.

GOD or DOG… You Decide

A new book recently came across my desk, called Dogspell: The Gospel According to Dog.  At first I thought maybe Dogspell was a new version of the musical Godspell, but using barking dogs — kind of like the Christmas music CDs put out by “Jingle Dogs” or the even more annoying “Jingle Cats” music CDs, where a group of cats meow out Christmas classics like “Here Comes Santa Claws” or “Meowy Christmas.” 

As it turns out Dogspell is a book that wants to guide Christians to a better understanding their relationship with God.  According to the publisher, the author “Uses [the] metaphor of dog’s unconditional devotion to its human and the joy it finds in [this] relationship….”

This idea is disturbing in so many ways:

Can this be the spiritual goal of most Christians — to view the universe on all-fours while sniffing the crotch of God?  And think of all the theological questions it raises.  Is it appropriate to hump God’s leg only on Sundays?  Or Saturdays?  Or should this be a daily ritual?

And then there is the question of Evil.  How can we address the fact that I have fleas?  Why doesn’t God do something about this?  Get me a flea-collar!  Buy some flea powder!  Please, God, do something to clean up all these horrible problems in the world.

I love my neighbor.  So can I ask God to send the city’s Mobile Spaying Unit to my neighbor’s house and “fix” them all?  (Just my idea for cleaning up the local gene pool.)

What if it turns out that my God is violent and brutal, and he beats the hell out of me with a 2x4 and sells me out to dogfights, like Michael Vick?  Am I still expected to lick his hand?

Why is it that people look up to the sky, searching for some invisible master, and abase themselves like dumb animals?

What is it about this idea that makes me want to lie down and lick my own ass, just to get the taste of this out of my mouth?  Oops, I can’t reach.  A little help here!

The fact is that The Religious never cease to amaze.  Sometimes their weird ideas are pretty funny.  Other times their violence and senseless bigotry are downright shocking.  From female circumcision to bombing abortion clinics, these people are seriously disturbed.  Maybe they are  mainly trying to work out their own serious emotional problems: a lack of love at an early age? overwhelming feelings of worthlessness? These lead them to accept crazy ideas.  

And these ideas are truly crazy.  Not eating fish on Friday.  Not using birth control.  Praying with candles and statues, and wishing for miracles.  Then they accept whatever crazy shit the preacher tells them, and reject the evidence of their own eyes.  

I know of a Baptist preacher in our town (pop. 18,000) who has a congregation of only 25 people.  Every Sunday (and Wednesday and Friday) he subjects them to 2 hours of yelling and personal abuse (I am *not* exaggerating).  Why do they put up with this jerk!  And worse yet, a few months ago he emptied the church bank account and left town.  And some church members still want him to come back!  How sick is that?

People can be convinced to believe almost anything.  The enormous growth of the Mormon Church in the last century proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that people can be made to believe almost anything, no matter how goofy it is.  The Church of Scientology is equally crazy.  And all these religions are, almost without exception, violent and cruel to non-believers.  So why do people still fall into the trap of religious belief?

Christian Ideals

Christianity — or any religion for that matter — is not just the sum of what members think and do.  Religion is the product of an idealized notion of how the universe works.  We can talk all we want to about Liturgies, Prayers, Devotions, and Charities, but these are just the end product of a concept.  People are devoted to their religions — each one has a specific set of beliefs — and they are willing to make major sacrifices and devote a significant part of their personal resources to supporting this concept.  And they do this even when the leaders of the church turn out to be abusive thugs, thieves and even child-molesters.  For many of The Religious, the real world is a separate category kept in a separate mental box, and their life experiences do not connect with The Belief, which is often maintained and upheld in spite of the evidence.

For example, on a daily basis ministers are found stealing church funds, seducing sons and daughters, manipulating elderly members into giving their life savings to the church, etc, etc, etc.  But rarely are these criminals caught and punished by the church.  Often it is the intervention of others — meaning non-believers or believers in some other church — who investigate and prosecute criminal acts.  I know of several cases where a local minister was caught stealing from the church.  In some cases the church asks for the money to be returned, but the thief is never prosecuted — mainly because that would reflect badly on the idealized notion of Christianity.  

Most church members are willing to “forgive and forget” rather than create a public scandal.  The usual excuse is that they do not want to create a “stumbling block” for new recruits — those who are still “weak” in their belief and have a low level of commitment to the faith.  Most congregations are willing to take the long view: that it is better to suck in a batch of new recruits (and their money) rather than punish wrongdoing in the church and risk losing membership.  Some churches will put up with ministers who exhibit truly bizarre behavior: drug addiction, addiction to pornography, alcoholism.  The Catholic Church protected many child molesters for decades, and they even defended them from criminal investigations. 

And still these “men of God” still demand to be admired and respected? And they will pout if you don't.

Are Christians Moral?

Part of the belief in Christianity is the belief that any “religion” is better than atheism.  Even a moderate form of secularized religion is to be preferred over atheism.  After all, a secularist might not oppose the recruiting efforts of churches.  The secularist might also be willing to ignore even blatant corruption in the church because of a general respect for Religion and The Religious.  This certainly was the attitude of Ben Franklin.  He thought that church was a waste of a Sunday, but at the same time Franklin contributed money to many churches and thought that religion was important to maintaining a moral and “honest” society.  Franklin believed that religion was very good — for his neighbors.

The scientific evidence, however, suggests just the opposite.  Every study done on this topic, comparing the Atheists with The Religious, suggests that Atheists are more moral and ethical.  The statistical evidence is clear.  Prisons are full of Christians and Muslims, but there are only a tiny number of atheists, compared with the general population.  Atheists are also better educated and more successful in their careers. 

At the same time, there are news stories coming out almost daily about religious pedophiles, ministers who steal from the church funds, and church youth leaders who seduce the teens who are put in their care.  Although teenage pregnancy is a pervasive problem in our society, religious schools are especially fertile ground for this problem.  At our local parochial school, the girl who is elected senior Prom Queen is typically selected from among the one or two senior cheerleaders who aren’t “showing” yet.  The children of The Religious have higher rates of venereal disease and higher rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  They also tend to be poorly educated and caught in dead-end jobs.

Yet the myth persists that The Religious are better or more moral than atheists or secular folk.  This is probably a case where recruiting new members and religious self-promotion (vitally necessary to any religion) has led the public to form a questionable opinion.  That is, because the churches are always talking about morality and the breakdown of ethics in society, people wrongly believe that The Religious are moral.  
  

On the contrary, The Religious almost always support the appearance of morality over the substance.  I’ve known many Christian businessmen who are good at “talking up” the idea of religion and morality, but I can’t think of one I would trust to hold my wallet.  The Religious often “talk a good game” but are generally more dishonest than you might imagine.  A businessman who touts his religion is, like the religious politicians, simply using his phony image to deceive his next victim.  Religion is often used as a “front” to hide the pervasive corruption.  Think of The Sopranos.

Atheist Politicians?

One difference between America and other countries is that America was founded, in part, as a religious nation.  Just as many settlers came here for economic opportunities, there were many settlers who came here to establish religious societies.  And whatever the extent of their success or failure it is still largely assumed by a significant part of the population that the United States has a particular religious standing, irrespective of the First Amendment.  Politicians — even the deist sort — have played that note heavily, usually to promote their own agenda.  Whether it was Abraham Lincoln working to end slavery or George W. Bush trying to incite us to smite the Muslim terrorists, they knew that a religious appeal would be effective in getting the public to accept a difficult premise.  And The Religious can be trusted to rush blindly into whatever situation presents itself, even into risking their own lives.  After all, the promise of a future life in Heaven is a strong incentive to patriotism.  At the same time, it is worth noting that George W. Bush has managed to create the persona of a good “born again” Christian leader and maintains that image, in spite of the fact that he is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis.

Today there are a number of strong associations between politics and religion.  In several states it is necessary to be a Roman Catholic to get elected to office.  In other states it is important to be a Evangelical, or perhaps even a Mormon.  Atheists rarely get elected to high office, and when they do — as, for example, when Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota — it is loudly noted by the media.  The idea that The Religious are better leaders or more ethical is a fantasy that is often sold to the public, and they almost always bite.