Please stop pretending that you speak for me, and the approximately half of the citizenry who vehemently disagree with you. Both of you, and especially Mr. Boehner, have developed the fiction of prefacing a statement of your beliefs with the phrases, “The American people want [or don't want],” or “The American people believe [or don't believe].” Your use of those words rings hollow, and is a fiction that attempts to justify your positions on issues. It is an unjustifiable habit. First, you were not elected by a majority of the American people. In fact, each of you ran in a congressional district that represents a small fraction of the electorate. On average, we might say that your district represents 1/435th of the people, ignoring the population discrepancy between districts in heavily populated states and that in the sparsely populated ones. You then attained your leadership positions in the House by a vote of your party’s representatives. But had we, the general population, been offered the opportunity to select the leaders of Congress, we might have chosen someone else. Alas, Congress is a representative body based on geographical division of the country, and the only federal position upon which we all vote, albeit indirectly, is the Presidency. So, if anyone claims to be able to speak on behalf of the American people, it would be the current president, who at least won a majority of the popular vote. But I will acknowledge right here that there are plenty who voted for Mr. McCain or other candidates who would prefer that Mr. Obama not claim to speak for them.

Let me go further. When you state that the American people believe this or that, you truly offend me. Nearly everything you say is in direct opposition to my deeply held beliefs. Mr. Cantor is especially grievous in his statements. As but one example, he is solicitous to the attentions of the so-called Tea Party, whose members in 2009 engaged in rowdy public behavior while exercising their First Amendment rights, and who were as divisive as anyone in their hijacking of town hall meetings and in their carrying of truly offensive signs; yet this week you lambasted the mostly peaceful “Occupy Wall Street” protesters as setting American vs. American. It is you, sir, who sets American vs. American.You insist that despite years of unwavering support for the unfunded wartime spending of President Bush, now we must cut dollar for dollar for any spending on our own needs, including that needed to ameliorate the suffering of those in your own district. It is you who joins in the efforts of a party that has as its modus operandi the delegitimizing of any Democratic president. It is you, sir, whose party created the “Southern Strategy,” the deliberate pitting of white vs. black. It is you and your colleagues who were (and apparently remain) eager to risk the financial foundation of our country to achieve dishonorable ends. Your claiming to speak for me is a slander of my good name.

Respectfully,
Kenneth J. Hirsh

[Updated 06/07]

Well, he might get away with “I broke no law,” though the ethics committee investigation will tell us more about that.

At many prior conferences, and on other fora, more experienced law librarians are wont to bemoan the fact that the source of our next generation of law librarians was unclear.  Well, having been following some of the younger members of our profession for the past few years, I have no such worries.  While the challenges to be discussed at the Harvard conference are real, serious, and will have substantial impact, there is no doubt that the next generation of law librarians will be as capable of facing those challenges as the previous generations were at facing theirs.  I am extremely pleased to count many of them as my friends.

This last sentence brings me to an even more personal reflection. In two weeks my elder daughter and her husband both will be awarded their master’s degrees by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science.  Kimberly, who also has a master’s of teaching and taught high school Latin for several years, is looking to be a secondary school librarian.  Her husband Will, who counts a J.D. also from UNC among his degrees, already is one of the pioneers in the burgeoning field of scholarly communications at academic institutions, though he does not yet have the position to match.  To me both are shining examples of the talent, skill, and dedication that the next generation of librarians is bringing to the profession and the world at large.

[Update:  On June 1, Will began his service as Director of Copyright and Digital Scholarship for the North Carolina State University Libraries.]

This coming August will mark 22 years since I received my M.S. in library and information studies at Florida State University.  During my time there Kimberly and her younger sister became the darlings of the library school community.  After all, who can resist precocious seven- and three-year-old girls?  My feelings then, and through my career as a librarian, are very well stated by Kimberly in a recent Facebook post, which I quote here: “You guys, I love library students and librarians. I’ve never felt so totally comfortable with a class of people before. Members of this profession are delightful.” Amen to that.

I have some hope for a better 2011, but there is not much reason to think our pols will get their act together on governing in an intelligent way. I am looking forward to the 9th Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the California Proposition 8 appeal.

To the few of you reading this, best wishes for a Happy New Year.

To begin with, Ms. Biberman’s rationale stems from two beliefs evidenced in several of her posts since becoming a contributing editor on Law Librarian Blog earlier this year.  One is that the Private Law Libraries SIS is the neglected stepchild of the association, so much so that it had to put on its own institute before this year’s annual meeting in Denver.  Second, that the Executive Board makes foolish decisions, as evidenced by its appointment last year of a vendor relations liaison and shutting out the Committee on Relations with Vendors, for which action she resigned from the committee.  She apparently feels that SIS members are not getting their dues money’s worth by giving half of the amount to the parent organization, despite that the association provides services such as electronic balloting, maintaining membership lists, hosting websites, assistance from headquarters staff,  and providing dedicated SIS programming slots at the annual meeting.

Gentle reader, I leave it to you do decide whether her rationale makes any sense.  As to the proposed amendments, here is my practical and philosophical analysis.  First, know that SIS dues are $15.00.  Most of the association dues are collected from renewals, following the mailing of renewal invoices.  I would argue that it is an unnecessary administrative expense to transfer the funds 3 more times per year, with little if any benefit accruing to the SIS.  The association is on an annual budget, and it makes sense that the sections continue to operate in that manner.

Why should the split be arbitrarily changed to 80/20?  What is the evidence that such a split will provide a benefit to an SIS without hurting the entire association?  And where is the need for the change?  Bylaws section X.6. already provides that “Allocations in excess of 50% shall be determined by the Executive Board and shall be based on a budget presented to the Board by each Special Interest Section.”  So any section that feels it needs additional funding can now present its case to the board.

Where is the logic in requiring section dues increases to be approved by the full association membership? The bylaws already provide that changes in dues structure or amount, outside of a defined cost of living increase, must be set by the membership (Sec. IV.3.).  What would we be gaining by making the suggested changes?  Note that the annual dues remittance form includes the cost of SIS membership in totaling dues, so the association already considers that amount dues, and as dues they are already subject to the restrictions imposed on changes in the dues structure.

In short, why should we change the bylaws to eliminate the cost-of-living increase provision and make it more expensive to distribute SIS dues?  My answer is that we should not.

P.S. Fox news:  your bias in all things showed through clearly last evening.  During Bret Baier’s Special Report, you posted a viewer poll asking, “Who is most reponsible for inflaming the Ground Zero mosque debate: the media, the Obama administration, or Rev. Jones?”  WRONG:  The partially correct answer is “the media,” but only after ultra-conservative individuals brought the issue to its attention.  Where was the choice “other politicians” among your answers?

P.P.S. Newt Gingrich:  Nazis in Germany destroyed houses of worship and had public mass book burnings. Of you, Rev. Jones, and Imam Rauf, who among you seems to be most espousing Nazi actions?

• Running to the store to pick up photos 3-5 days after we dropped off the film, and wondering how they’ll turn out.
• Waiting at the mailbox for the photos 5-7 days after I mailed in the film, and wondering how they’ll turn out.
• My Polaroid Swinger and Model 80B Land cameras
• Gathering the family around a double 8 projector to watch the 4-minute silent movie that just came back from the processor.
• My sore index finger, after repeatedly dialing a busy phone number.
• Phone number exchanges that had meaning: TUxedo, FRanklin, BUtterfield, PEnnsylvania.
• 45 RPM single records, paying only 79¢ for the one song you wanted, and occasionally finding a gem on the flip side.
• Console television sets
• Pocket-size AM radios with awful sounding earphones
• Chemistry sets
• Heathkits
• A clear starting date for the new television season
• Movie double features
• Drive-in theaters (yes, there are still some around)

What do you miss?

Putting aside her use of the N-word, which in this context undoubtedly was offensive to many people, there are two other points I’d like to make. First, she offers the opinion that raising issues of race once a biracial president is in office is a red herring.  Apparently in her opinion, the election of Barak Obama as president has magically erased racism from our culture.  I think not.

Second, in her subsequent appearance with Larry King, she said she was giving up her radio show so she could “regain her first amendment rights.”  Funny, I don’t recall that the FCC was threatening to fine her for indecency, or that some other government agency was barring her from the airwaves.  So how were her first amendment rights infringed?  Oh, people criticized her for what she said.  The language in the first amendment is pretty clear, at least as to whom it prevents from restricting one’s speech.  ”Congress shall make no law…”, and as a fundamental right, the 14th Amendment applies it to the states.  It does not insulate one from private reaction to your words, whether or not they would offend a “reasonable person.”  So, Dr. Laura is giving up her show because she doesn’t want to take the heat she generates.  I can understand that, but if you are getting out of the kitchen, as President Truman advised, don’t claim you’re doing it to protect your constitutional rights.

Stephen Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, who blogs at Law, Religion, and Ethics, wrote yesterday that he did not have to read the opinion to know what it said.  He states three reasons for this, which I paraphrase here.  First, that today’s judges and academics have “detached” the meaning of the equal protection and due process clauses from any meanings intended by their original authors.  Second, “elite culture in this country, including the academy and the mainstream media, is generally hostile to traditional judgments about family and sexual morality, and to practices and institutions that embody those judgments.”  Third, the judge was looking to make a name for himself.

I’ll take the easiest charge first – Why would one presume a judge making a decision favoring the progressive side of an argument would be anymore likely to be seeking the limelight than one choosing the opposite course?  This is simply an ad hominem attack, and is not worthy of any further comment.  As to Smith’s first argument, that the drafters of the 14th amendment and those who ratified it did not intend such effects, I daresay the law of unintended consequences is a slim argument. I suggest that at the time of debate on the amendment, no one asked the proponents, “Do you want to extend this to advance equal rights for homosexuals?” Society changes substantially in only  twenty years, and has undergone more than sea change in the 144 years since the amendment’s submission to the states.  It is entirely reasonable for a court, or a society, looking to apply the principles of “equal protection,” to find today that denial of equal rights to what most believe is a “benefit conferred by the state” violates those principles.

Finally, Smith argues that elites are hostile to traditional values and practices of family and institutions.  In other words, discrimination is justified because “it’s always been done that way.”  I’m certain that had Smith been writing 55 years ago he would have said the same about the decision in Brown v. Board of Education or 43 years ago about that in Loving v. Virginia.  “We’ve always done it that way” is the refuge of those who have no rational basis for their position.  And nothing about extending state recognition of marriage between same-sex couples will affect other families or non-governmental institutions.  In our society, marriage carries meaning to both government and to the church.  Nowhere is a court telling a church it has to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies.  If you want to belong to a church that hews to the traditional meaning, you are more than welcome to do so.  But the government may not enforce or condone such discrimination in its activities.  I would even go so far to say that using the religious basis for keeping the state from recognizing marriage for same-sex couples is a violation of the establishment clause.

My concerns on the political process reflect the current extreme conservative mood in the much of the country, and most notably in Congress.  Republican leaders are giving serious consideration to proposing the fourteenth amendment be modified to deny automatic citizenship to all born in our country.  It is no stretch to see them adding to that proposal the provision that either defines marriage as between a man and a woman, or more cryptically says that notwithstanding the amendment, equal protection shall not be applied to prevent states from defining marriage.  It is not impossible to imagine such a proposal getting a favorable 2/3 vote in a slightly more conservative Congress, and I truly wonder whether the need to have thirty-eight states ratify such a discriminatory amendment will stand as a bulwark against such a mean-spirited proposal.