Learning the economic consequences of policies is always of interest to me. Like when I read Freakonomics, the bit correlating the decreased crime rate to the increased rate of abortions was illuminating. If criminals aren’t born because that population was aborted, then crime levels off, twenty years later, right?

Somebody stepped in something this time, and that somebody is a librarian. Have you read about the uproar at Purdue University over one of their librarians writing a blog denouncing homosexual lifestyles and their economic outcomes? He says that the homosexual lifestyle has extremely high financial costs. First he talks about the amount spent on combating HIV and AIDS. But we all know that neither of those diseases are specific to homosexuals, right?

And what else? He doesn’t think that gays should marry, nor should any entity provide healthcare benefits for domestic partners because that reduces available resources for providing

additional coverage to those of us adhering to traditional sexual moral standards.

Whew.

I don’t agree with his perspective, his beliefs. Yet I find his economic approach provocative. Never mind that he fails to present valid statistics to back his argument, I simply appreciate the economic model approach and think this could be a useful strategy to be used for good, not evil.

Likewise, I believe that he is within his rights to state his personal beliefs on a blog that is not connected to Purdue University. Intellectual freedom and free speech protect people who spout off all sorts of random beliefs, really. But nobody should be silenced. Everyone should contribute to the conversation and share her opinion. It is the only way we can begin to work together to provide solutions to the many issues, both library and non-library-related, in society.

Bert Chapman started a conversation. And others are commenting. It sparked dialogue, and that is the most important takeaway from the brouhaha.

One of the cutest things I saw was a response to Chapman’s post. Scary cute, actually. Kevin Casimer blogs at Boilercrat Junction. Casimer substituted the word librarian for homosexual and came up with an argument to do away with librarians because they were a drain on the economy, too.

Here’s a little taste, but you can read the entire thing here:

Getting rid of librarians makes economic sense. Wal-mart trusts people to check out their groceries so surely we could implement self-checkout at our libraries. Replacing librarians with minimum wage workers to put books back on the shelf and assist people with self-checkout would save billions. This process could even generate new income if we allowed police to access these systems and fine those who don’t return books. Of course, a degree of service would be lost without librarians. However, I think we’ll manage locally as long as someone teaches the new workers to be as helpful as the last Purdue librarian I spoke to who offered to “help [me] do a search on ‘the google’”.

Mondays are such a blast.

Randomness has its benefits, and multi-tasking is inefficient. These are things I’ve written about recently.

Every day another layer of complexity appears that tells us that this is good, this is bad, and this is not what we thought. Such is the case of daydreaming. Clive Thompson suggests that its crucial for

solving problems in our personal lives and at work.

Instead of seeing daydreaming as a time suck, we should embrace it for its potential. Mental drift is useful. The irony is that your brain works harder when you daydream and drift than when you manage to focus on one thing.

But we don’t allow ourselves too many quiet, creative moments in our daily grind. I rarely slip away from my office to take lunch. Surely I’d be more productive if I took more breaks. Who is to say that I don’t take breaks, mental breaks, during the day? It’s easy to be on auto-pilot as I move from task to task.

Here’s another nugget:

the wandering mind also utilizes the prefrontal cortex, the part of our brain that’s involved in problem-solving.

And that reminds me of a bumpersticker a friend displayed on her car until she sold it:

Not all those who wander are lost.

What else, then? Just a reminder not to beat yourself up for your lack of focus on a particular day. Sometimes your brain is more attuned to what you need than you are.

No matter whether I remain a librarian until the day that I die, I shall always be a reader. Reading the old-fashioned way, in printed, published books, is my preference;  possibly because that’s the way I’m accustomed to reading, by holding a book in my hands. I open the cover and turn each page as I finish the last word at its bottom. I love the physicality of books. I cherish them.

I won’t get into arguments about the effects of books and reading on deforestation, because, surely the numbers are mind-boggling. And we could look into alternatives in papermaking, but I don’t have time for that today, either.

Mostly what I came to say today on Blog Action Day, is that reading traditional, printed books is energy efficient, especially in the daytime, by daylight. At night, well, you may have some arguments about that depending on which source one draws on for her light.

Throw out your television. We rarely turn on ours. Various reasons, really: There’s nothing worthwhile on (except the return of Project Runway), there’s too much to keep us busy, and I’d much rather couple my mind up to book and let my imagination run a muck. And so if you throw it away, you’ll do wonders for energy efficiency. And you’ll do wonders for your mind, as well, if you turn to books, rather than to your television for your evening leisure activities.

Once you’ve offed your television, don’t go into a remorseful fit and decide to go one better by purchasing the megalith flat screen tv you’ve eyed for months. Those are the enemy.

In fact, the California Energy Commission found that

flat screens account for up to 10 percent of household energy use

Flat screen television use contributes to global warming, a.k.a. “climate change.”

The planet benefits more from your energy conservation if you keep your old television, if you must. But imagine the amount of energy savings derived from turning on to a book, instead. Reveling in the smug satisfaction of knowing that you’ve done your part to slow climate change is the best bit of the deal.

Oh, and the added benefits of stimulating your mind in the meantime. Can’t forget that.

My first thought when reading an article from the New Scientist about how juggling

boosts the connections between different parts of the brain by tweaking the architecture of the brain’s “white matter”

was multi-tasking. I multi-task. Librarians multi-task. At the reference desk we’re fielding phone calls, real live people, chat sessions, and email responses.

Surely all the multi-tasking we do could possibly build more white brain matter? Apparently not. Sudden shifts between tasks, especially to a new, un familiar task, is inefficient. While multi-tasking uses our executive control, a skill especially touted for children to develop early, it essentially costs us time in the long run.

But how can librarians decrease the amount of multi-tasking at the reference desk? A little reference triage is in order. First, serve the people who’re standing there before you.

Nothing ticks me off quicker than when I stand in line at the circulation desk at the public library and the clerks are tending to people on the phone. Yeah, they’re short staffed. And when there’s down time, which is rare anymore there, they renew books and talk to people about their fines.

Second, this means that you have a dedicated person to answer phones, to renew books, back behind the scenes. Not at the front lines. Often when I’m at the reference desk I imagine how much more efficient it would be to have one dedicated phone reference librarian. Or people take shifts. The ability to answer people’s questions is not tied to a physical location anymore. Ready reference is rarely used over the phone.

And, you can also have dedicated people to answer questions at the reference desk, email, and chat. Essentially what I’m saying is that everything is distributed. That way, the reference librarian concentrates on providing the best experience for her patron without being distracted or interrupted by the phone, etc.

In the meantime, learning to juggle, for real, is something to consider. We want to be at the top of our games, whipsmart and engaging in witty repartee.  This is sort of like preaching to the choir: Most librarians I know are naturally curious and love learning. To paraphrase from the New Scientist article, it’s the learning process itself, not so much whether you’re successful.

The thing about juggling, which I never knew, is that some people get it. And other people never do. But give it a try. It takes a lot of practice, but once you learn it, your muscle memory kicks in and it’s a skill you can turn to in a pinch. Maybe go join the circus as a juggling clown if the library gig doesn’t work out.

I’m a random person. A random librarian. I have so many interests. Some are fleeting, and others are long-lasting.

Randomness is a good fit with librarianship. It indicates a lively mind. It indicates broad interests. I’ve always thought that librarians have minds perfect for remembering minutia. Or at least, how to find it. Randomness can also indicate mental disabilities.

It’s always nice having my suspicions confirmed. Caterina Fake touted the value of randomness in an interview with Dan Schawbel.

Okay, not randomness exactly. Here’s what she said:

I really believe that things that seem unrelated, the juxtaposition of disparate ideas, are necessary for innovation, creativity and invention. So my blog may seems a jumble of unrelated posts, but there is a method to the madness. We should all become renaissance men and women as it allows for surprising new ways of thinking.

But the value in randomness, as Fake suggests, is that it is necessary for innovation, creativity, and invention.

The “traditional” librarian, who loves information, loves books, and loves reading can only benefit by pursuing those passions. The wider we trawl, the more treasures we net from the sea. Then it comes down to putting those disparate ideas together and creating something funky. Something useful. Something, a tool, perhaps an idea, that helps your library move forward during times of change.

I love how Melissa Bracke works the monday mashup experiment. She generates a random number and a random word, and writes a mashup.

Who knows where those may lead librarians and libraries?