Why Being a Librarian is a Radical Choice

Here is a little something I stumbled across this morning - worth a read . . .



It is from an article called: Why being a Librarian is a readical Choice



"Sharing is under siege.

It is the sworn enemy of the global market – which is why so much of international trade law is designed to criminalize sharing.

Forget Napster, and the crackdowns on pirated CDs and software.

In Cochabamba Bolivia, the uprising against Bechtel was sparked by the fact that under the contract, it became illegal to collect rainwater, since the company had bought all water rights.

In India, farmers are sued by Monsanto for engaging in the age old practice of saving their seeds and sharing them with their neighbours – they are supposed to buy them anew each year from Monsanto.

This is the essence of free trade: making sure that absolutely nothing – whether books or water or ideas – is offered for free.

The role of international trade law must be understood not only as taking down “barriers to trade” – as it claims – but as a legal process that systematically puts up new barriers — around knowledge, technology and the commons itself, through fiercely protective patent and trademark law.

There is absolutely nothing free about it.

Most of you probably didn’t think that helping people to share books was subversive when you decided to become librarians.

And it shouldn’t be: sharing, giving, saving and reusing are the most human of impulses and we are at our best and most human when we act on them. The desire to share, as you know, is immense.

Yet the fact is that you have chosen a profession that has become radical. "

How does this intersect with the Christian life?

Are we 'radicals sharers?'

Scott


PS: check out the article here

I've opened pandora's box.

On Facebook I discovered the group, 'Barker College Class of 1993'. Which is when I did year 12. (Or matriculated for my SA readers). There were 50 people from my year already in the group. I became number 51.

But scrolling through the faces and names I started to get all conflicted.

Some I didn't remember at all.

Some I remember fondly, a few of whom I am still in touch with. It has also helped me to re connect with others long forgotten which has been tops.

But there were a 3rd group of faces, those whom while at school I never spoke to and (or is it 'because'?) they never spoke to me. I never clicked with them then , and I am wondering if I should click on them now.

I hate phoneys. So I don't want to pretend that we are interested in each other now when we never where at school - and lets be honest, not much has changed since then.

But then I start thinking, was the problem with me? If I could be back in 1993 with the eyes I have now, would I still see them in the same light? Would I realise that it was just as much me as it was them and in the foolishness of youth I missed some good people?

Or where my inital impressions the right ones and it's best to let sleeping dogs lie?

And if you are reading this and are one of those 50 facebook contacts from the class of '93, what do you think of all this?

Little help?

Scott

I'm in

When I got to work today, I checked my mail.

This was how one of them began . . .


"All our wives meet once a month to share books, conversation, tea and biscuits.

I suggest that we, the husbands, meet once a month to share books, conversation, beer and chips."

How good is that! I beleive this is what they mean when they talk about a 'no brainer'?!

Scott

Don't mess with us

I actually really like South Africa. I do.

I like my house, my job and there are heaps of cool places to hang out (whether you're looking for funky, arty, rural, metro, beachy, or township).

But statistics tell us that this is one of the most violent places on earth. Which kind of sucks.

Hence the new addition to the Tubman house - now referred to as the Tubman fortress. Not exactly my security measure of choice, but when your boss is paying, you should be thankful, right?

But have you ever felt safe and scared at the same time?

Scott

In the beginning . . .was confusion

We are spending some time in Genesis with Junior and Senior Youth at the moment and I'm always looking for chances to sharpen my spontaneous answering skills. One question that gets chucked round a bit is, 'Is Genesis real? Like, I mean, should we read it literally or is it just figuraive - like poetry or something?'

So, as a test run, here is a shot at an answer

Please feel free to help me by leaving a comment? Ta

Scott.

Should we read Genesis as literal or just poetic? (And what difference does it make?)

The bible has different types of literature spread throughout its 66 books. Some read like history, others like letters. There are also some poems, songs and biographies. What makes Genesis a little tricky is that it combines some of these different styles in the one book. For instance the first 11 chapters seem to be written in a slightly different style than chapters 12-50 (which we would probably refer to as history). So yes, Genesis is poetic and it is literal and other parts of it are probably a bit of a mix!

But here’s the thing: just because something is described poetically doesn’t mean that it is not true. So it’s important to remember that we can’t just ‘explain away’ the bits of Genesis we find a hard to swallow by saying, ‘Oh, they are just the poetic bits’ as if by saying this we mean that this part of the story never really happened. If I told you that ‘I love Hayley (my wife) so much that my heart feels like it will burst’, it doesn’t mean I have coronary problems, it’s simply a way to try and describe something that is hard to grasp unless you are in my shoes. Since Genesis records events like the creation of the universe, how the first humans stabbed God in the back and how God still provides for those people under His judgment, is it any surprise that the author dips into poetry, symbolism and epic story telling from time to time?

The trick is not to get so caught up in the style of the story that you miss the point. A classic example is in Gen Ch 1 when we are told God created the world in seven days. Were they seven ‘literally’ days or is it just symbolically referring to seven ‘periods of time’? The bottom line is who cares, right? The point is that God is powerfully in control so that all He has to do is speak a word and things appear from nothing. He made people on day six as the highlight of His creation and on day seven He brought everything to rest as the goal of creation. Can you see how whether the days are literally or figurative doesn’t really matter in the end – at least it certainly doesn’t change the point of the story.

Little help?

Help Me!!

When I changed templates -Ii lost the ability for you to leave a comment.

Hmmmm - can't seem to find the problem on dashboard. What am I missing?

Since you can't leave a comment (doh!) try emailing me

scott@stjames.org.za

ta

Living In

I am coming to understand something about writing a sermon.

The dawning of my insight goes like this . . .

Sermom 3 in my Proverbs series began last night at 10:30pm after bible study left and after I got Jemma up for her feed (no, I didn't do the feeding despite my blossoming man boobs). The sermon got a remarkably good start (Thank you Holy Spirit). It continued this morning in the car to college with Mervyn where it got another push. It also felt happy after getting some attention on the train back from college. Even as I type it is bubbling away.

So here is my pearl: I am starting to think you live with a sermon, rather than just write it. It's kind of the same contrast between sharing a house with a spouse or a bunch of mates compare to just meeting that person for coffee 3 times a week.

It's a little more intensive and potenatially disruptive but mega more satisfying.

Scott