Posted on 05/22/2005 8:19:11 AM PDT by SmithL
Why do we need Mother's Day anyway?
Just kidding!
I'm staying away from controversial topics for a while. For starters, I don't have time to read all the responses.
In my last column, I questioned the need for taxpayer-funded libraries, considering that books are readily available at low prices from private sources such as Amazon.com.
You could say the column did not receive overwhelming approval. In fact, for the next 2½ weeks, my computer continually flashed at me: "You have mail!"
It might as well have said: "Another angry librarian!"
Many of the replies were long and detailed. I almost expected to see footnotes. They came from not only the South Suburbs, but also distant lands such as Michigan, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Montana.
One woman was not content to send e-mail. She had to call me at home on that Sunday afternoon. After two minutes of her impassioned, nonstop berating, I started to say gently, "Hey, do I get to say anything here?" But she had hung up.
Here at The Star, I was stopped in the hallway by the able woman who types in letters to the editor and verifies their authenticity. I don't remember the exact words, but the essence of her message was: "Do you think you could find some safer topics? My fingers are getting tired."
Even my fellow conservatives were unimpressed. A thread on my column at FreeRepublic.com attracted 2,286 views and 198 comments, nearly all negative. If you'd like to read it, dial up the Web site and search for "why have libraries." Scroll down two or three screens.
Then there was my dad, a retired special education administrator. He had just five words for me, spoken gravely, slowly, with equal shares of disappointment and morbid curiosity:
"Why did you write that?"
It was as if he were asking: "Why did you get a second mortgage and buy 80,000 lottery tickets?"
(By the way, in case any of you know my family, please be assured they are not right-wing nuts like me. They are good North Side Democrats. I don't know where I went wrong.)
So, in sum, dear dissenters, even if you did not write or call The Star, you can be assured that I got your message.
Some of the replies were amusing. "Amazmanian" wanted to know: "Can we expect a future column on book-burning?"
Several people seized on my reference to the value of the book "An Incomplete Education." Obviously, they said, I need it. Can't complain — I left myself wide open for that one.
Another writer picked up on my reference to "Citizen Kane." I said that after reading "Incomplete Education," I know all I need to know: Rosebud is a sled.
The writer made the point that if I were to visit the library, I could, like, you know, actually watch the movie? Now, there's a concept.
Now, I have written controversial columns before. For example, if you want to make people mad, a good place to start is to question the circumstances under which John Kerry got all those medals in Vietnam. I did this in May 2004 and got a good spanking from Kerry supporters.
Then, if you want to make people madder still, quote some of the Bush-hating nonsense at DemocraticUnderground.com and suggest the writers are "little Ceausescus," as I did this past March 13. I figured I'd get away with that because I didn't think anybody remembered who Ceausescu was. I was wrong. They do.
But now, I know that if you want to make people really, really, really mad, then suggest that their local public library is not a vital necessity.
Who knew people liked their libraries so much?
A large part of my problem was self-inflicted. I didn't really mean to say that all libraries should simply be shut down. I think they should just be privatized. This, I thought, was implicit in the second sentence of that offending column:
"Why do we even need taxpayer-funded libraries?"
The key word there: "taxpayer-funded."
However, I inadvertently negated my own valid point in the last paragraph of the column, when I wrote: "So, a memo to Orland Park: Dump the bookmobile. And maybe dump the whole library too."
Ouch. That was sloppy writing that came back to bite me in the rear.
So please allow me to make a point in my defense. Many people told me access to good books is vital to the mental fitness of the citizenry. Well, true enough.
But then, by that logic, why do we not also have taxpayer-supported gyms?
Juvenalis, the ancient Roman poet, said the human ideal is "mens sana in corpore sano." That's Latin for "sound mind in a sound body."
If I should pay taxes to help you keep your mind sound, then why shouldn't you pay taxes to help me keep my body sound?
I have to pay $312 a year to belong to the Bally's gym across the street. Come on, library supporters, help me defray this cost. Please line up outside The Star at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday with cash or a checkbook.
Once you do, I promise to retract my column from April 24.
Meanwhile, as I said at the start, I am sticking to safe topics from now on. In my next column, I will suggest that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed a holy book down a toilet. Who could get upset about that? Michael Bowers is a copy editor and paginator for The Star. Send e-mail to mbowers@starnewspapers.com.
I beg to differ. I live in a very rural (rather quaint, actually) area where the majority of the populace work for minimum wage or less. Not because of a lot of illegals, but because up here in the mountains there simply is not a lot of areas where businesses can exist, let alone get started. The town makes the majority of its income from tourist dollars, actually, and as an example of how the overall business infrastructure is defined from the outset; there is not even any 'free' postal delivery. There is a post-office, however.
The local library (here and in neighboring towns) exists (barely) on a very tiny allocation from the county's annual budget, and the assistance of those few of us that can contribute what we can. Needless to say, that is not a lot. When both bread-winners in the head of the household are earning minimum wage or barely over, extra monies are difficult to scrape together for whatever reason. A contribution to the local library falls somewhat on the lower end of the list, and by no stretch of the imagination can the concept of 'everyone' being able to afford a 'fee' fall anywhere close to the truth hereabouts.
LOL. We appear to have rather similar communities despite the differences in the areas of the nation we live in, luv. *grin* I can relate, no doubt.
If you ever decide to part with it or have an older one you wish to dispose of (or know of someone who is dumping one even if it is nonfunctional) please FReepmail Me, as I am in desperate need of one and with My limited income I am unable to acquire one at this time. Or even trade for one, as I have LOTS of MBs', ISA and PCI cards, and systems available in exchange (raises an inquiring eyebrow). :^)
Yes. You can pay the fee for as many poor people as you like. No one will stop you.
All journalists live to be published; this guy gets published via a contentious column, sat back and waited for the flack and then rehung that same hat on a new peg - the outraged reaction; does that clear it up?
Lending libraries are poor economic models; Ben Franklin was disposed to discontinue the first one for people's dishonesty and the depletion of resources.
No batteries.
I agree with him, too. I can go with privately funded libraries.
And from a conservative standpoint, you seem to be saying, "Some people can't afford a library fee; therefore, libraries should be paid for by taxpayers." This is, beg your pardon, socialism. Conservatism says, "Some people can't afford to pay a library fee, and no, they don't have cable TV instead. Okay, some of the better off will donate to make the library available for those who want it, but can't afford it." Private enterprise (pay your own fee) or private charity (I'll pay your fee.) We don't need the government to take care of everyone.
This thread has inspired some interesting discussion in my family on the principle of self-help vs. government dependence. (Anoreth is the next Ann Coulter :-).
"Could" in the "anything's possible" sense, or something more realistic? Assuming that you're still working with the general Internet as the "data store," so to speak, the "bypassing" would have to be at the user level ... and anyone who's trying to keep their kids from seeing porn could talk about how hard that is, if you allow access to general knowledge.
What I mean is, you got a plan, or just wishing?
He could always walk to the library to stay in shape.
I guess things haven't changed that much over the years.
The other place -- study halls. Mostly religious. Not quite libraries.
No matter the media, papaer, linen, leather parchment, stone, glass etching -- none are permanent. All require some re-write cycle, just like dynamic RAM. The only difference is the length of the cycle.
Actually, I was not claiming that at all, and if you get to know Me at all you will understand that I am about as far from embracing a 'socialist' perspective as you can get.
My issue was exactly as I stated: not everyone has the capability of contributing to every worthy (depending upon your perspective) cause there might be in the world. Speaking for Myself, I have in the past and still do on an occasional basis provided donations to the local library/libraries as I have been able. Usually bags of books, but we all do what we can.
Unfortunately, I am one of the ones that would not be able to provide that "everyone can afford a modest fee" amount of which you previously stated due to the financial constraints under which I am currently labouring under. I would be happier if more people did the same, but that will not influence My actions in the matter. I happen to believe that Public Libraries are greatly beneficial to us all, and feel that assistance from the government in general is a good thing because of that, but private donations are the best bet in deference of My views of Government Assistance in general.
I agree that libraries are beneficial, and even that taxpayer-funded libraries may (MAY) reach more people than hypothetical privately-funded libraries would ... but I don't buy the jump to "assistance from the government in general is a good thing because of that."
"Assistance from the government" means a gun to the head of people - taxpayers - who might otherwise make different choices for allocating their disposable income.
Agree with you wholeheartedly. I am right in the middle of something right now, so I will reply to you in a bit...
*Bump* for later referral
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.