« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »
The reference area is turning into an Information Commons this summer, and though I did originally add a wii to the IT budget, it wound up cut from the final ordering. But I was so happy when I found a bullet point for starting a video game collection in the proposed collection development plan for next year.
"A flashback to Buffy's final speech to the Potentials reveals that Willow is channeling the essence of the scythe in order to activate Potentials all over the world. Defying the tradition of only one slayer per generation, Willow's spell will raise an army strong enough to do battle with The First."
From Wikipedia's entry on Buffy Season 7, Episode 29.
It's amazing that wikipedia has an entry for each individual Buffy episode. And there's the power of it in action. Wikipedia and librarything, del.icio.us-- it's activating all the librarians in the world. We're defying the tradition of an MLS (or MS, LIS in my case). I'm totally going to watch all the seasons of Buffy again. It's been almost an entire year since the last time I saw all seven seasons.
Leslie Burger in "Transforming Reference." American Libraries Mar. 2007 writes,
"No more reinventing reference. The people have reinvented it for us. It is as simple as us going to where the people are. What if instead of waiting for people to come to our library portals or virtual reference sites where they must "fit" into our world, we venture into their world and answer questions where they are? A scarier, uncataloged place for sure, but one where the gratification of helping someone in need is immediate. If every librarian in the world worked a two-hour shift on an answer portal and we really had experts answering 50 million questions each year, what an amazing world it would be. Think about it."
Last week we started offering IM reference at my library, and though we had very little activity (probably we needed better & more hours, and better advertising the service) the experience was great. It took about 5 minutes to set-up with Meebo Me and embed it into our site, and a little longer to decide procedure (who's going to log in and answer questions) and policy (how to do a reference interview over IM) questions. I can't wait until next semester, when we try it again, especially since we're also redesigning our Reference space as an Information Commons.
"Being vegan to me means one thing: an attempt to reduce the intense suffering of non-human animals. To me, saying "I'm vegan" is synonymous with saying, "I have decided to live a lifestyle that does not support animal exploitation."
It's unusual that I'm writing so much about being vegan or vegetarian. I didn't realize I had so much to say on the topic. But I was thinking about what makes someone a vegan, and how I don't define it as completely eliminating animal products from my life, and then I found the above quote that sums it all up for me.
On a more personal note it's our last semester at NYU!
From Isa's livejournal post about Nina Planck's op-ed article: "But this op ed piece by Nina Planck really bugged me. I wrote a response to it elsewhere, but I'm posting it here for good measure.
For starters, Nina Planck, is not a doctor or even a nutritionist. She is a business woman whose business is selling meat and dairy to people, including her book about why meat and dairy are good for you.
There are plant sources for DHA yet she chooses to omit that fact. She does say that plant sources for essential amino acids are "inferior in quantity and quality" but offers no evidence of this. Probably because there is actually no evidence of this. Humans can synthesize enough DHA from eating plant sources rich in Omega-3s, like flax seeds. So if the mom is eating her omega-3s and breast feeding, DHA levels should be sufficient and free of mercury and other toxins that a fish-heavy diet would surely contain."
I love Isa. Her recipes are incredible and her writing is peaceful, inclusive and friendly. I buy her cookbooks and read her site because she sets a great example.
The thing is, how can anyone say with such certainty that vegan diets are impossible for infants, when so many healthy infants are raised on vegan diets? Whether or not soy formula and vegan breastmilk is "the best" is up for debate. I don't know the answer to "the best" question-- I'm not sure anyone does. But why bash vegans? There's no evidence that a well balanced vegan diet is detrimental. It can be. Sure. So can a meat-inclusive diet.
I think this morning, what really happened is I felt extremely defensive and angry when I read Nina Planck's op-ed article. Calling it "Death by Veganism" and suggesting that the child's death was a direct consequence of having vegan parents (as opposed to irresponsible parents who willfully starved their child and did not respond as soon at their child's health started failing) sort of suggested to me that she was calling vegans "baby killers."
The thing is, I think lots of vegans would agree with many of her beliefs, in general. Many of us love green markets, think raw, unprocessed food is better and think free-range and organic is the way to go. Some vegans believe it's ethical to eat eggs & milk from farms where animals are treated humanely-- it's the unethical (I know this is a giant discussion) treatment of animals they protest. I certainly agree that high fructose corn syrup, refined sugar and hydrogenated oils are not healthy. Refined sugar isn't even usually vegan.
I don't agree with her, that people need to eat animal products to live, and there's a ton of research supporting vegetarian/ veganism. Sure, there' research against it, also. Some doctors are pro- and some are against. There are many vegan breast-feeding mothers who raise healthy kids (I know a few!) and many babies raised on soy formula who grow up healthy (I am one!) So, why the hate?
For someone who's pretty extreme herself (raw milk!) I think calling vegans baby killers is just plain mean. It seems hateful and unnecessary, especially from a fringe eater herself (again-- lard?).
And, even a few hours later, and re-reading the op-ed piece a few times, I still think it's irresponsible. She's calling out an entire group of people, most of whom made their nutritional choices based on sound decisions, often with the advice of doctors and much consideration and research. She has a loud voice in the world (NY Times certainly has lots of readers), she shouldn't be using her voice for stereotyping vegans as unfit parents. That just creates more hate in a world that needs more tolerance and peace.
In the NY Times Nina Planck writes "Death by Veganism", which is so under-researched, I don't even think it's status as an op-ed piece is an excuse for a blatant lack of information literacy/ media literacy/ research.
She suggests that the parents who are currently jailed for feeding their infant apple juice and soy milk (who died of malnutrition) where jailed for feeding their baby a vegan diet, and strongly suggests that a vegan diet will almost certainly kill your child. She's got sentences like, "A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals."
So, I'm wondering how much the meat/ dairy industry paid her to write this. I'm wondering whether she's ever heard of soy formula?
I was a soy-formula baby, and not because my parents were vegan, or even vegetarian, or had any moral/ ethical reasons for feeding me soy formula. It's because I could have suffered from malnutrition if my parents kept feeding their lactose intolerant baby cow's milk. That kid died because he was malnourished, not because he was vegan. There are also malnourished non vegan babies out there. There are healthy vegan toddlers, and all breast-fed babies are vegetarian (imagine a parent grinding up a meat-smoothy because they felt so strongly against having a vegetarian baby).
In a world where so many children have diabetes, where so many Americans are overweight, have high cholesterol, and many other ailments associated with high-fat intake, this article is irresponsible.
The problem is pitting vegan vs. carnivore. No matter what, you're not going to convince me that a milkshake, greasy burger or most slices of pizza are healthy. At the same time, I'm not arguing you can replace this diet with a garden burger, soy-cheese pizza and soy-shake and call that healthy. Both vegans and carnivores are perfectly capable of eating crappy foods. And both are capable of eating high quality, balanced diets.
The problem with this article is that it suggests a meat-based diet is the only option for health and uses that baby's death as evidence. That case is not evidence. A meat-based diet is not the only option, and eating meat absolutely does not ensure that a diet is healthy.
An about.com writer found my bike glove picture on flickr and emailed me for permission to use it in his article. This is almost as exciting as when our sock monkey was featured on NYPL's Summer Reading website a few years ago.
This Library Journal article sheds no additional light on why Susan Kent quit on Wednesday. It was "effective immediately" and she'd been there less than three years.