New Yorkers also have access to this content (and everything the Times hasn't made available on their website), through NYPL's subscription databases. NYPL doesn't offer Historical NY Times from home, but 1995-present is available from home, and the archives back to 1851 are available from any branch or research library (I believe you also have access if you're using a NYPL wireless network).

You will need your library barcode to access the databases from home, but with your barcode you'll not only have access to NY Times, you'll also have access to tens of thousands of other newspapers, magazines and journals (mostly full-text).

Some of my favorites of the databases New Yorkers can access from home include Academic Search Premier, Biography Resource Center, Business Source Premier, Encyclopedia Britannica and ERIC.

So New Yorkers-- your tax money is already paying for these magazine, newspaper & journal subscriptions. Take advantage of it.

Kitchen renovation started on Monday. On Sunday Jenny retired our oven from over 50 years of service. Vegan orange pudding cupcakes with chocolate ganache was a fine send-off.

1) Sautee 5 cloves of chopped garlic in a pan with 2 tablespoons of olive oil
2) Add 3 cups of chopped white or brown mushrooms, and continue to sautee. Add basil, lemon thyme, oregano and black pepper
3) Boil 2.5 cups of polenta in 7 cups of water, until it's really thick
4) Add mushroom mixture to the polenta
5) Add half a large jar of tomato sauce to the whole thing

Layering the lasagna
1) Oil a lasagna pan
2) Add some tomato sauce
3) Add about an inch of polenta mixture
4) Add about a cup of grated soy mozzarella
5) Repeat steps 2-4 until all your sauce and polenta mixture is gone-- make sure to end the last layer with soy cheese on the top

Finally
Bake in oven at 350 degrees for ten-fifteen minutes, until the cheese is melted. Add some chopped parsely and chopped chives to the top, as tasty garnish. Let cool in the fridge and then serve cold.

Note: This may be good warm, but I can't vouch for it as I haven't tried it.

Stocks of social capital, such as trust, norms, and networks, tend to be self-reinforcing and cumulative. Successful collaboration in one endeavor builds connections and trust- social assets that facilitate future collaboration in other, unrelated tasks.

I wonder the results of comparing the performance of 2-person teams given identical, creative tasks. Half the teams would work on the task continuously for an hour. The other half would talk about the task for 10 minutes, chat about whatever they wanted for 20 minutes, and then work for 30 minutes. Who would finish first? Which is more productive for different types of tasks?

Something that is repetitive and just takes time, I'd suspect, would do better with continuous work, like filling test tubes. But, I think co-writing a proposal would do better with the capital-building break. But maybe even filling test tubes would do better with the chatting break because the workers would feel more morale?

Also, how long does it take to build enough capital for the effects to be obvious? Like, is a twenty minute break enough?

And, it looks like MA will get to keep same-sex marriage. What a good week!

A few years ago at a strategic planning meeting the facilitator talked about how libraries' budgets aren't getting any bigger. She said- "The pot is never going to get any bigger, so you have to figure out how to do more with less." And then she reminded us that more people search google in a minute than visit our branches in a month... or some sort of equally upsetting statistic... I can't remember the exact number, only my ensuing sadness. I felt like I'd been told we only have three years left to live, and not any longer so better make use of that short time.

In our conflict management & negotiation class last night we split into partners to negotiate over a crate of oranges. We thought we were in a bidding war, and trying to figure out whether we could make do with only half the oranges, but then, after sharing some info, it turned out one of us needed the rind, and the other needed the pulp, but we were so focused on the size of the pot, we didn't stop to share information (and I'd even heard this dilemna solution before, and still didn't think to apply it last night-- it's unusually difficult to remember to share when you're competing against someone).

So, what I learned is that the pot is an artifically imposed limit that need not exist. And yes-- of course we should streamline library procedures, and yes- maybe there isn't money to justify offering programs that don't draw a crowd (especially since not drawing a crowd in NYC probably indicates you're not meeting the needs/desires of the community), and of course we need to work within budgets.

But please, public libraries. I implore you. Think outside the pot. Decide how you want to be, without thinking about the limits, and then figure out how to do it.

For years, librarians have been able to distill the notion of authority, in its purest form, to two simple questions: Who said it? and Under whose auspices? Now, as more content migrates online, understanding authority is a more complex process. Social news sites, like Digg.com allow these traditional authority structures to be bypassed, creating a new, socially-driven authority, based upon an author expertise that is not necessarily recognized by academia. In order for researchers, especially student researchers, to evaluate these sources, they must learn to construct their own authority.

Teaching information literacy is changing in so many ways, I think because technology isn't just changing how we access information (monitor vs. paper is so 1995), but also how we organize communities around information, and how the recommendations from our communities matter so much (more than traditional authority recommendations).

I think also, information literacy concentrated on teaching how to evaluate and cite resources. Now, we have to talk with students (high school or college?) about being part of the conversation. Not that I have any answers... I've certainly wanted to delete my own posts, and I have changed flickr pics from public to private, but I think information literacy classes are a good place for students to really begin having this conversation in a formal way.

Like, right after the sex talk there needs to be a myspace talk. Or maybe it should be before the sex talk?

This is cool, I think. I don't know almost anything about ALA, and I think it's my new goal this year, to join more library associations. Now that I won't have to spend so much on tuition (though huge thanks! to NYU, NYPL and DC37 for all the tuition reimbursement and scholarships through the years, for both of us-- it's made a tremendous difference), I figure I can attend more conferences & join associations.

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.

"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.

From veganoutreach.org

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!

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.

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.

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.