President Obama Nominates New Librarian of Congress Who Supports Open Access (teleread.com) 188
Dr. Carla Hayden, CEO of the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore and a former president of the American Library Association, is President Obama's nominee for Librarian of Congress. What a contrast to long-time LoC Librarian James Billington, a stuffy old academic who hated e-books and was so far out of touch that he liked faxing more than e-mail. According to President Obama, "Dr. Hayden has devoted her career to modernizing libraries so that everyone can participate in today's digital culture." Dr. Hayden was a fierce opponent of the Patriot Act and believes strongly in speaking out against surveillance. What's more, she would be the 14th Librarian of Congress, in charge of the Copyright Office, and the first woman and first African-American to hold the position.
Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Funny)
This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.
Re: (Score:1)
This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.
Joe? Joe Biden is that you? I remember what you said back in '92... Sounds a lot like you.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Informative)
Might want to lay off the Fox News drivel. Here's what he actually said:
"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."
And further clarified because partisan hacks like you keep taking his words out-of-context (Oh, Fox wouldn't do *that*, would they?):
"Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today."
Seriously, turn off Fox and grow a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
This really should be left up to the next elected president, if we are to believe the do-nothing blow-hards in Congress.
You know the unsaid GOP Congresscritters' words: This should be left up to the next elected president if that person is a Republican . Believe you me, if Sanders or Clinton get elected, they'll find yet another reason to move their goalposts.
Best way to win is not to play their game: Recess time!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they'll declare that Clinton or Sanders will be a one term president only. Then within a few months start shouting for impeachment hearings on the basis that the president is a poopie head. When that dies down it will be midterm elections and so they can't possibly allow any consideration of nominees that close to an election.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, since the constitution only allows the president to work for 3 years out of 4. So says the congress that works for 0 years out of 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the republicans won't block the appointment of a librarian, none of their voters care about libraries after all, those are for people who know what books are.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The president has every right to nominate anyone he wants. And congress has every right to block it.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well they don't actually. The constitution obligates them to do their job and approve a nomination.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do believe that the power of "consent" includes the power to say no.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to openly question and discuss the candidate, then reject through a vote. It's bullshit to simply say don't bother because we think it should wait until the next president.
If this was November, I would agree with them. It is February. I believe that the average time to nominate and vote on a potential Supreme Court Justice is around 2 months, a vacant seat has never lasted more than 4 months. And the Republicans want to do nothing for 10 months?
Fuck them. I hope Obama nominates a moderate Republican (if any still exist) or a conservative Democrat (I know a few) just to make them look even more stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
"That's not what they are threatening. They have been very public in stating they will not even debate the nominee. "
Under the Senate powers to advise the President on who gets to sit on the Supreme Court it would appear that they have the authority to advise the President that eight justices is sufficient for the time being. I am not aware of any obligation of the Senate to keep nine justices on the court, it's merely tradition.
Re: Nomination Blocked! (Score:3)
Politics is running this country, not any of the boogie men the current crop of candidates want us to blame.
Re: Nomination Blocked! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?
Have there always been nine? The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
"That's not what they are threatening. They have been very public in stating they will not even debate the nominee. "
Under the Senate powers to advise the President on who gets to sit on the Supreme Court it would appear that they have the authority to advise the President that eight justices is sufficient for the time being. I am not aware of any obligation of the Senate to keep nine justices on the court, it's merely tradition.
1) The Senate takes an oath to uphold the constitution.
2) The Constitution states that the Senate must confirm or reject a Supreme Court nomination.
3) Blocking the appointment by not letting it out of committee for a vote is a violation of #1
But hey, the Constitution also allows the president to make a recess appointment, so unless Congress plans on staying in session each and every day until the next president takes office, well, there could easily be an appointment, albeit temporary. As for eight is enough, it could be, but one would think that the current vacancy shifts the balance to the left and the current Congress would not want that particularly with the cases coming up.
The only reason to explain them violating the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold would be pandering to their constituents -- at least the ones with deep pockets.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
And most of these same people were whining eight years ago that it was unfair when the Democrats pulled this same crap with circuit court nominees. The Democrats caved, and George W. Bush put four circuit court justices on the bench between April and July of his last year.
The Democrats were wrong to try this eight years ago, and the Republicans were right to call it unfair. But that makes the Republican leadership a bunch of hypocritical opportunists for turning right around eight years later and acting like spoiled children.
Re: (Score:2)
If this was November, I would agree with them. It is February. I believe that the average time to nominate and vote on a potential Supreme Court Justice is around 2 months, a vacant seat has never lasted more than 4 months. And the Republicans want to do nothing for 10 months?
Recently, you are correct on the average time; however, the longest time was a lot longer than 10 months [pewresearch.org]. I agree that the Senate should consider nominees, but the Democrats threatened to do the same to Bush near the end of his second term (although they ended up not following through on the threat, so kudos to them, I guess).
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Obama has every right to make a recess appointment if those chuckleheads can't get their act together. Looks like the next recess long enough may be in April ( http://www.senate.gov/legislat... [senate.gov] ). If they don't hold any hearings, they might not get a say at all as to the next Justice.
Re: (Score:2)
My statement reeks of a logical fallacy. The excluded middle... In theory, destructive is not necessarily your goal. However, I'm going to stick with it and say that it is the presumable goal - as all evidence seems to point in that direction. So, it may appear to be fallacious but I'm gonna stick with it.
I'd counter my post with, "Facts not in evidence!" I'd rebut with citations of the Republicans being destructive. As I play the potentially ensuing debate in my head, I'm pretty sure I can point out a tren
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:4, Informative)
The Democrats started it with Bork and they'll support the same thing if they control Congress, at which time some people will suddenly be okay with it.
You seem to be assuming that they have to consent to somebody. They do not.
No, the Democrats allowed the hearings to proceed. The Republicans are saying they will not even hold the hearings. There is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When the shoe has been on the other foot, congress has eventually approved someone prior to the Bork nomination. Even with Scalia the Democrat majority congress approved him after a token amount of discussion. Bork was sort of an anomaly in some ways (after a hard nosed Scalia they didn't want someone even more extreme). After that there were fights but we got nominees approved.
The only reason for the pushback now has nothing to do with the nominee or the constitution. We have pushback now because the e
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the constitution obligate them to approve someone? What if it was the only person nominated? Well I guess that has to do? No way! THis isn't the first time that this has happened. It is just when the shoe is on the other foot, people want to bitch and moan.
Article II
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does, but it has been held that the senate must meet to either give or deny consent. Not holding the hearing is a violation of Article II as it has been interpreted. Of course, Obama simply needs to wait until the senate is in recess and he can make a temporary appointment. Then the senate must address the issue when they return.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Funny)
The constitution obligates them to do their job and approve a nomination.
This guy [wikipedia.org] might be able to correct you on that mistaken assumption.
Re: (Score:3)
Actuallt Robert Bork got his vote and was rejected 42-58...nice try though,
They have to hold a vote on whether to approve a nomination, however they can reject it.
Re: (Score:2)
It might interest you to know that at least 6 other times in or history the Senate has failed to vote on a supreme court justice as early as John Quincy Adams' appointment of John J. Crittenden in 1828 . Furthermore on about 8 different occasions the nomination was withdrawn before a vote was ever taken.
They demonstrably do not have to hold a vote on the nomination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok if you insist.. but what about the 6 nominations that were not withdrawn and never voted on?
Was I ambiguous in the 8 withdrawn nominations being separate from the no voting at all?
Re: (Score:2)
No but I only pointed that attempting to include irrelevant things into your argument that did not belong there. By the way, it was more than 6 so I would suggest you get the facts correct. Let's discuss those cases then:
Most of the cases ha
Re: (Score:2)
In the original "at least 6" was used. The latter use of 6 was in reference to the original so I'm not sure why you went there.
I do not discount withdrawn nominations because some of them could have been due to knowing they wouldn't receive a vote. Would you want to be remembered as someone so insignificant that the Senate would even vote you down or someone who decided not to take the position?
And thanks for the extra information. It has been a while and i was just quickly thumbing through some websites to
Re: (Score:2)
I do not discount withdrawn nominations because some of them could have been due to knowing they wouldn't receive a vote. Would you want to be remembered as someone so insignificant that the Senate would even vote you down or someone who decided not to take the position?
In some of the cases the candidate assumed they would not pass a confirmation vote, but they would receive a vote. The last to withdraw, Harriet Miers withdrew after members from both parties questioned her qualifications as unsuitable and wondered if the major reason she was nominated was that she was a close friend of George W. Bush. Even if her confirmation got out of a committee vote (which it did not look like it would), it looked as if she would not survive an at-large confirmation vote. So she withdr
Re: (Score:2)
The crittenden nomination was after the presidential election by a lame duck president. A better counter example would be Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, appointing a justice in April of 1888 an election year. Cleveland also appointed another justice in 1892 also an election year, in both cases congress was controlled by the Republicans and in both cases the nominee was confirmed in short order. Most of 6 failed nominations were in fact defeated not ignored. If a nominee is withdrawn it does not count. Eisen
Re: (Score:2)
No, those 6 had no votes whatsoever on their confirmation. Some actually had resolutions passed on not holding a vote.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well they don't actually. The constitution obligates them to do their job and approve a nomination.
Well, not per se.
The seperation of powers works to preclude the branches of government from gutting each other. Take Kansas (please!) where the legislature and executive just backed down on their statute defunding the judiciary branch if the judiciary ruled against another attempt by the executive and legislature to legislate a violation of the state constitution. A two-year crisis ended mere weeks ago.
If the Senate is blocked by a minority, the rule change known as the "nuclear option" can be had with 51 votes. That ends the filibuster. A vote on a nominee could be passed with 51 votes.
What has been going on has fostered a vast, and growing, dislike of the Congress and the Judiciary. The abrogation of the Paris Accord by an unprecedented act of the SCOTUS two weeks ago is just the last in a long list of outrageous acts of judicial activism (Go read both parties briefs and both sets of arguments in the double-briefed/ twice-argued Citizens United v. FEC matter - the case that the Court decided was never heard in any lower court. After that square the 9th and 10th Amendments with Bush v. Gore for me.) and a do-nothing Congress that is the best money can buy.
The price of civilization is a just legal system and a just political system. Most of the voters (and, more of the general population) are madder than any time since the Viet Nam war. Trump is playing the low information voters like a cheap fiddle (Thank You Mr. Murdoch - you reap what you sowed) and the center-left is looking at your standard FDR Democrat as if he's some kind of demon from hell - while the Eisenhower Republican known as HRC is thrashing to make traction.
No, the Senate may not sustain the nominee for the Librarian of Congress, or the (eventual) nominee for the SCOTUS - but, the price that failure to act will carry may be too high to pay.
For myself, I am ticked that the President didn't drop a recess appointment into the opening as soon as the justice was declared dead. It would have avoided a long battle and a ton of 4:4 votes while the Senate roiled. But, that's why Democrats lose to the "act first - never think" bought-and-paid-for party. Before the rest of the Reds (yes, you folks adopted the term "red state" and that makes you "Reds" where I come from) go off on me consider that this nation is in its longest war, with no reasonable end in sight, has adopted extra-judicial indefinite imprisonment, and has played out every single scenario that H. Ross Perot said would occur - under both major parties.
The first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one - stop digging!
Re: (Score:2)
For myself, I am ticked that the President didn't drop a recess appointment into the opening as soon as the justice was declared dead.
The President has time. Congress typically gets out during the summer. I would think it would just make the President look bad. He has to give Congress the chance first. If they continue to be obstinate, then it's on them. The President comes out on the moral high ground and gets what he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Their job obligates them to approve a nomination. It does not obligate them to approve *any* nomination. They, the people who are claiming they will obstruct, should actually give a fair hearing to any/all nominations. And I mean real fair, not "fair." Failing to do so is failing to do their duty. However, they're not required to approve any nomination offered - just a nomination.
Unfortunately, they've now tainted this process. Anyone who is nominated is going to be assumed to have been excluded becaus
Re: (Score:2)
“There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nomineethat once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.” --Barack Obama, 2006
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
We all did have a say. As much as some people hate to admit it, Barack Obama is the current President of the United States, as such, his job is to nominate people who he believes are the best qualified for the job. That is exactly what he is doing with this nomination. If Congress was to do their job, the would approve her based on merit, not some political agenda. If she's an idiot, then sure, don't confirm her, otherwise it is their job to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
The US constitution does not specify the factors upon which the Senate may "advise and consent" on a presidential nomination any more than it specifies qualifications the president must consider. Nor is there a specified time frame within which they must act upon a nomination as long as they are in session. The president may nominate anybody he chooses and the Senate then decides what to do with the nomination. It literally takes two sides (two branches) working together to get somebody confirmed.
Of cours
Re: (Score:3)
If congress does not approve because the person is unqualified, then that is fair. If congress does not approve because of politics, then that is legal but it is not necessarily fair and the people are most certainly allowed to criticize congress harshly over that. Congress does not have to approve, but on the other hand we do not have to shut up about it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about "fair" or "qualified" according to the US Constitution. In fact, there is no specific criteria outlined at all. The process is the president nominates who he wants and the Senate can do what they want with it, including not taking up the nomination if they choose. That's what the Constitution says, so drop the "fair" and "qualified" criteria as they don't exist. What DOES exist is that the two branches must AGREE that the nominee is acceptable. If Obama want's to nominate a candidate th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it's not just like that, because they actually had a specific nominee with a position to scrutinize, and they actually did have a vote regarding him. Republicans are vowing not to have a vote. There's not even a candidate on the table, they're just saying, "No, we won't even offer advice and consent." It's absolute obstructionist insanity, as is par for the course of late.
Re: (Score:2)
I would feel better if they had hearings followed by a vote, even if the vote was no. That's what we pay them for, they should do their jobs. If they want to boycott the process of government then they can do it on their own time.
They won't do that though because they know they'll look slightly better to the voters if they just obstruct things than if they held a hearing where the public could see that the applicant was qualified and then they voted no anyway. It's too close to an election so they can't
Re: Nomination Blocked! (Score:2)
Ron Paul spent thirty years earning a congressman's salary while doing nothing more than give elloquent speeches to taxpayers telling them how its a good thing if he never does the job they pay him to do. Libertarians may be sincere (if deluded) but libertarian politicians are running the ultimate lazy get-out-of-work scam. I suppose the libertarian voters got their wish: an entire congress has been slacking off for 8 years and telling the world how not doing their job is their job....
Re: (Score:2)
You mean congress will try to create a political show of it. Oh wait, they already have started...
Re: (Score:2)
I mean every congress makes a show of it. A show so bad that judicial nominees has have declined their own nomination as far back as Levi Lincoln sr. Under James Madison (one of the founding fathers ) and as recently as Douglas H. Ginsburg under Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be neat to have a position on the court but I wouldn't want to go through the process either.
Speaking of a bit stoned though, Reagan had a nomination who decline to be nominated because he smoked weed with his students as a professor. Something that likely wouldn't ever realistically impact his ability to do the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you were laughing so hard that not only did you miss the your instead of you're but you missed the entire point too.
Perhaps if you read it again. Maybe get your mom to help.
Re: Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Informative)
So you have to go back to the 80s? The Democratic Congress rejected Bork, and then confirmed Kennedy, Reagan's next nominee (well, the next one that didn't get disqualified for smoking pot, not such a disqualification nowadays), without a dissenting vote. I'm not saying that the Senate has to rubber-stamp Obama's pick, but that the Senate should not unduly obstruct the process. Some Senators have said they will refuse to confirm any Obama appointee, which is an entirely different thing.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this entirely different than what then Senator Joe Biden did in 1992?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So what your saying is that because someone did something you disapprove of, then it's OK for that to become the norm? Is that really your argument?"
I neither approve or disapprove of this tactic, it is merely one means by which the party that controls the US Senate may assure that they have a justice that they find suited for the position. I merely wish to see the tactic applied equally. If election season SCOTUS appointments should be verboten then it should remain that way regardless of who sits in th
Re: (Score:2)
Sure - except that what the Republicans have announced they are doing is not what the Democrats did. If the Republicans object to a specific Supreme Court nomination, that's fine. If they object to Supreme Court nominees in general, that isn't. Reagan had Bork rejected and Kennedy accepted.
The Republicans might also want to think about the possibility of a Democrat-controlled Senate with Bernie or Hillary making the nominations. Do they want to seriously consider an Obama nomination that they have so
Re: (Score:2)
And Scalia was nominated by Reagan and got a pass. So did Rehnquist but then again he was just changing his seating position.
Re: Nomination Blocked! (Score:4, Funny)
Although McConnell seems to be succeeding at his goal of making Obama a two term president only.
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. This close to a national election, the people should be allowed to have a say in the matter. Trying to stuff all the positions at the last minute is the height of arrogance.
If the founding fathers had wanted the people's decisions about the presidency to expire after only three years, they would have specified a 3-year term for the president.
Re: (Score:1)
The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.
Re: (Score:2)
The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.
Congress does not yet have a SCOTUS nominee of which to disapprove. They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The fact is that in the last 100 years the ONLY time a SCOTUS nominee has been voted down is by Democrats. Not only that, Obama himself participated in a fillibuster of a Bush nominee when he was a Senator. Joe Biden and other Democrats have also been against nominees from Republicans in similar circumstances as the one we find today.
You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] All Democrats. All the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nomination Blocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're blocking the idea of giving any nominee an approve/disapprove hearing..
They aren't blocking anything. They are stating their opinion which they have ever right todo.
They have vowed to give no nominee a hearing until the next president is inaugurated. That's not an "opinion" -- that's blocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it blocking even before any nominee has been named? Or is it political posturing?
The congress can set its own procedures and has every right to reject any nomination for any reason. Nothing is stopping Obama from nominating anyone besides political theater on both sides.
Using the word "blocking" to describe this situation distorts reality to your bias. Another way to describe the situation: The advice from the Senate is "we don't want you to choose, better wait till after the election." and are refusing
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans are in this spot precisely because they haven't been doing enough to get in the way. The whole tea party was an insurrection against the Republicans, not the Democrats, because they were going along with the Democrats too much.
There is zero chance of this in an election year, in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we agree: the Republican-controlled congress is blocking. So, not wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If you stand in front of a doorway and vow not to let me pass, then you're blocking my entry. I don't have to actually try to enter to make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
"Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation"
So, I guess now we can get rid of that old "Obama got Osama" meme. Although "Obama got Scalia" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Obama has made sure they are in a lose lose situation"
So, I guess now we can get rid of that old "Obama got Osama" meme. Although "Obama got Scalia" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Straw man argument you know. You imply something I've never said. Scalia died of natural causes...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I've seen people on Facebook claiming that the death of a 79-year-old man not in good health in unsuspicious circumstances was probably murder. Facebook's usually looney, but this seems to be going above and beyond.
Re: Nomination Blocked! (Score:2)
Obama made sure ?!
Did he have Scalia murdered ? Or is this a case of shit happens and adults deal with shit happening constructively. Destructively or obstructively is prerogative of 2-year-olds.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you describe EXACTLY what I mean. Obama and the Democrats didn't try to go all bi-partisan on us with the health care law and choose to force the issue, refusing to allow any amendments or even allow the 2,000 page bill to be read much less vetted by the public, but decided that they had to pass the bill NOW because they where going to loose their democrat only cloture ability in the Senate once Ted Kennedy's replacement from the special election was seated. They literally passed it at the last po
Re: (Score:1)
The founding fathers also wanted Congress to approve or disapprove of the presidents nomination. They disapprove. There is nothing wrong with congress blocking this.
No, there is nothing wrong with congress voting to disapprove of the nomination, there is everything wrong with not voting on it.
Re: (Score:2)
McConnell keeps calling Obama a "lame duck President", but I don't think he knows what that term means. Traditionally, the "lame duck" portion of a President's term begins when the next President is elected. McConnell seems to want it to be from when the election cycle begins. Since our election cycles seem to begin earlier and earlier, it would mean that a President would be a lame duck after only two years in office. How long until a President would only get a year of actually doing stuff before the o
Re: (Score:3)
The people did have a say in the matter, they elected the president for a four year term. The term doesn't end just because some people can't wait for it to happen. There is nothing in the constitution that says the powers of the president wane in their last year.
What's maddening is that this is exactly the argument the Republicans made 10 years ago when Bush was in office and the Dems held the Senate. Who in the end confirmed 3 justices to the Supreme Court for Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess one in 7+ years isn't what you would call *bad*...is it?
Mitch McConnell responds "HELL NO!" (Score:1, Troll)
The next President should pick the Librarian!!!
Re: (Score:3)
>"RACIST bullshit nomination. Of course Obama picks a person of African American descent. He sees ONLY race. Scum."
Of course your post is a troll (and already modded down), but I find it amusing that you would post such a thing. So if Bush appointed a European American, would that be seeing only race?
Hopefully he picked the best candidate for the job... someone who has the best experience and fit. If that happens to be someone black or a woman or both, that is perfectly fine. If she was picked BECAUSE
Yes, but does the new Librarian have good Psy? (Score:3)
Clearly we should find out: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/... [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Ook?
Wow... classy (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe we could take this opportunity to express excitement about the incoming librarian rather than shit all over her predecessor. No matter what you thought of the guy, this is not a great time to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter? Can't even work yourself up to rathering [newhumanist.org.uk], much less something usefully concrete?
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Slownewsday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't entirely understand the reference, not having read that particular book of Dennett's.
But I don't believe I'm trying to introduce some kind of false dichotomy, which as far as I can make out, is what you're talking about. I'm suggesting that the event of the appointment of a new Librarian of Congress is not a particularly good venue for denigrating the retired one. The old guy already stepped down, and the contextless sniping of the summary just seems spiteful. It's also completely without support
Oook? (Score:5, Funny)
Oook? Ook.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
Tangentially-related open access item (Score:5, Informative)
With NSF's public access policy [nsf.gov] in place, PubMed [nih.gov] provides open-access to a lot of journal papers in a variety of formats, including EPUB.
I've found the PubMed site itself to be one of the best-laid-out reference web sites I've used, period -- its links to external journals, full and partial papers in various formats, and ability to bookmark items of interest, are all very functional and easy to access.
Re: (Score:2)
Bit of 90s styling though.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Are you suggesting like buttons, a PM system, and the opportunity to share it on other sites, perhaps? 'Cause I kinda like it like it is and it's kind of imperative that it is as it's likely to allow access with the fewest resources including physical capacity.
Given its location, it's almost certainly likely to "work" (for some semblance of the word) for blind people, for example. I'm sure if it didn't, someone would be yelling about it and rightfully so, I guess. Do th
About that stuffy old academic (Score:1)
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2015/15-174.html
https://www.loc.gov/about/about-the-librarian/previous-librarians-of-congress/james-h-billington/
Billington doubled the size of the Library’s traditional analog collections while simultaneously creating a massive new digital Library of Congress providing official legislative information, primary documents of American history, international cultural treasures and a host of web-based innovations such as electronic copyright registration, mobile access to reading materials for the blind and physically handicapped and modernized cataloging standards for libraries nationwide.
He established the National Book Festival, the John W. Kluge Center and its Nobel-level John W. Kluge Prize for Achievement in the Study of Humanity, the world’s largest and most state-of-the-art audio-visual conservation center, the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song and other programs to "get the champagne out of the bottle" for the American public.
Billington also raised half a billion dollars in private support to supplement Congressional appropriations during a period of exponential growth, and despite a 30 percent reduction in personnel.
The second link has even more about that "stuffy old academic". It really does a disservice to him and to Slashdot for yaelk to base the story on Dr. Carla Hayden's nomination on some noname jackass's blog. My hopes that Slashdot was going to improve its article selection with the new ownership is fast fading.
stuffy old academic? (Score:3, Informative)
What the fucking fuck. I read this sentence and my bullshit detector went so that I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and read for myself. Please learn to read and form your opinion instead of trusting this asshat submitter.
I read over his entire career and I can't really find much disagreeable with this guy.
During his tenure at the Library of Congress, Billington championed no-fee electronic services,[12] beginning with:
American Memory in 1990, which became The National Digital Library in 1994, providing free access online to digitized American history and culture resources with curatorial explanations for K-12 education
THOMAS.gov website in 1994 to provide free public access to U.S. federal legislative information with ongoing updates; and CONGRESS.gov website to provide a state-of-the-art framework for both Congress and the public in 2012
Educational portal for K-12 teachers and students in 1996, and subsequently new prizes and programs for advancing literacy in 2013
Online social media presence for the Library beginning in 2007, which expanded to include blogs, Flickr, establishment of Flickr Commons, Facebook, iTunesU, Pinterest, RSS, Twitter, YouTube and other new media channels. Twitter donated its digital archive to the Library of Congress in 2010; its vice president of engineering, Greg Pass noted, "I am very grateful that Dr. Billington and the Library recognize the value of this information."
"eCo" online copyright registration, status-checking, processing, and electronic file upload systems in 2008
The World Digital Library in 2009, in association with UNESCO and 181 partners in 81 countries, to make oline copies of professionally curated primary materials of the world's varied cultures free available in multiple languages.
Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2010, a new cataloguing standard for the digital age implements in 2013
BIBFRAME in 2011, a data model for bibliographic description to provide a foundation for those depending on bibliographic data shared by the Library with partners on the web and in the broader networked world
National Jukebox in 2011 to provide streaming free online access to more than 10,000 out-of-print music and spoken word recordings.
BARD in 2013, digital talking books mobile app for Braille and Audio Reading Downloads in partnership with the Library's National Library Service for the blind and physically handicapped, that enables free downloads of audio and Braille books to mobile devices via the Apple App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the most important freedoms we have come from this guy as well due to the loopholes he introduced into the DMCA:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/b... [zdnet.com]
Seriously, what a fucking disgrace this summary is.
Units (Score:2)
This is government over-reach gone mad, There's no need for a "secretary of the length of a football field" or a knight guardian of "areas the size of Belgium" or a minister for the "mass of an SUV".
Where does it end ? Justice presiding over Wiffles ?
What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump makes America grate again!
Re: (Score:2)
Now you mention it, isn't it funny how those "we must make government smaller" republicans never seem to want touch libraries. It's not like any of their voters read... yet somehow libraries get a free pass while the programs that give hungry people food get gutted. It's an interesting observation since the only *other* things that get a free pass are military spending, oil subsidies, tax breaks for rich people, tax loopholes for big corporations and their own paychecks (they will never suggest balancing th
Re: (Score:2)
Here's to arguing for fair-use exemptions to the DMCA. Because if the LoC can't preserve our digital culture, it needs to go. And if I am legally allowed to be able to rip my DVDs again that would be a nice bonus.