Good sense of humor.
I didn't really mean to say that all libraries should simply be shut down. I think they should just be privatized.
I agree.
Libtraries are a great place to take your kids if you want them to get raped in the bathroom by one of the vagrants who spends his time there viewing internet porn and urinating on the books.
Other than that, libraries are a colossal waste.
The basic concept behind publicly-funded libraries is that the Government should provide the means by which individuals can exercise vital rights and responsibilities set forth in the Constitution. So, if we have taxpayer-funded libraries in furtherance of the First Amendment, we should also have taxpayer-funded guns distributed to any citizen who wants one in furtherance of the Second Amendment. How many of those who support the former would support the latter, do you suppose?
You are still an idiot!
I think I remember that post and I may have responded to it, I just can't believe that the response was so negative. Maybe there are a higher percentage of troll and DU types here than I thought.
I will be back into this thread as soon as I go review that old post.
Bottom line: I think Mike got it right the first time!
Nice to read such an enjoyable column. A rare treat!
any library I have ever been to, and I have been to plenty were funded by taxpayer dollars AND private funding to cover extra services and buy more books. I contribute myself. I don't live in a large metro area,and have never seen vagrants there, but I see plenty of teens, kids, and the elderly using the facilities to learn, study, research, use the internet, and yes, goof off. (there are worse places to goof off)
Libraries are probably one of the best investments of taxpayer dollars there are. Funding has been cut or not increased (a cut in liberal terms) the last couple years, and I don't object to that necessarily, my local library had actually built branches in the rural areas (and still kept bookmobile)which tells me they were getting a bit much. I would rather see libraries than PBS any day of the week. I think privatization, would simply make them inaccessible to people who need them.
They are obviously not using the library facilities other than the rest rooms and the heated space in winter, by they can not be kicked out. They make it impossible for taxpaying citizens to use the library.
These are two of the three reasons I can think of why I stopped using the "public library" when my daughter was six and started devouring books at an alarming pace. That was in 1977.
I have many more responses to wade through in this thread, but the trend is clear: there are widely divergent differences of opinion based on unconscious provincialism, of which most of us are unaware. The dichotomy between the "red" and the "blue" areas. It's like different universes, as wide as the chasm between muslims and civilized people.
I grew up in San Francisco, California, and if libraries today were like the libraries then, this whole discussion would not be necessary.
The difference is that libraries today, in the bluest of states have degenerated into politically correct and pervert indoctrination centers. There is no other way to say it. But that almost certainly is not true of libraries in other areas of the country, hence the seemingly snseless contradictions in opinion. Both sides are right (including the author of the original column) depending on their geographical location. To be specific...
In the old days, libraries presented knowlege in book form to satisfy every level of need. If individuals limited their scope of knowlege the first time, they always had the option of a second chance at learning or a third, simply by returning to the same library.
Then Libraries devolved to catering to the least common denominator over time, made worse by activism driving what was suitable or desireable, sliding into the bottomless pit of perversion and decay: Heather has two Mommies, Perversion is good for you, or Bush planned and executed 911.
Ecology and environmentalism as the new religion became the standard for what needed to be known and learned. Mind you, books of opposing views were published, too, but it was not deemed necessary to include them among the new knowlege palace. They simple were not there; the ex-dope-smokers-turned-librarians simply did not approve.
Whereas, before, one could find the complete technical plans for the construction of the Panama Canal, afterwards it was considered too obscure and "unpopular" to cater to that segment of knowlege, so it was erased as an option forever. Same with all the sciences: mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, thermodynamics, Engineering, transportation. Same with facts: History, culture, religion, philosophy. All are now the exclusive venue of formal education. Outside of universities, forget it.
But you can find dozens of volumes on aromatherapy, candles and hallucinogens.
My last four attempts at visiting the library for useful, real world information in book form were a dismal failure. Zero for four. The message was clear: you need crap? Go to the public library. You need real-world useful knowlege? Buy your own freakin' books!
Having the taxpayers pay out millions, as the result of a "bookmobile" accident, is a whole other topic that can best be dealt with under "catering to losers" and "bottom feeders"
As to public libraries, 'twas not always thus. Lending libraries such as the one Franklin started were subscription affairs, after all. One might start a considerable debate over the value to society of having that sort of resource available for those who cannot afford to purchase its constituent volumes - I happen to think it's a considerable value, having used one on numerous occasions to garner information that is either not available on the 'Net or that I wouldn't bother collecting on my own. A 20-volume set of Audubon is great but a little pricey if all you want to do is check out what a crested grebe looks like.
The problem, of course, is that there are a number of similar benefits that a government can and does provide that are really not its job to provide - a shooting range, for example. I'll settle for public libraries that are privately funded (I'm a donor to my alma mater's library) and give gladly for the purpose, but holding a gun to my neighbor's head to get him to contribute isn't, IMHO, a proper function of government.
Rush took a caller on this topic Friday. It seems that there is some momentum building to make libraries fee based instead of tax based.
A taxpayer-supported gym isn't a good analogy, as even poor people can get their physical fitness for free (push-ups, sit-ups, jumping jacks). Books are not free.
That said, taxpayer funding for libraries only comes in the form of matching funds -- the government will not pay for libraries in communities that refuse to contribute private support.
Many people have private memberships at Netflix or Blockbuster. While libraries have "free" videos, the private sector have a much better selection and without any controversy.
There used to be book rentals decades ago (I've seen such tagging in some used books).
My public library doesn't serve me well (although it is a wonderful place for homeless to sleep and bathe and there are all of the free internet porn and chat machines).
When I want to read newspapers and publications, I go to a private library at Rice University. Although I am not a student or alumni, they do not restrict access to those who have paid in. I sign in as a guest.
I believe the first libraries in this country were privately owned.
If we keep talking like this, some may wake up to a notion of separation of School and State. Certainly would take away from the power of leftist organizations (and the ALA is one).
He could always walk to the library to stay in shape.
The other place -- study halls. Mostly religious. Not quite libraries.
Citizen Kane -- despite Orson Welles' malicious mistelling of the life story of William Randolph Hearst -- is called one of the great movies of all time for good reason. Even if you know what "Rosebud" is before seeing it (as I did -- Lucy Van Pelt spoiled it for Linus as well as the rest of us who read Peanuts), that doesn't come close to settling all the matters of the movie, and if you have only seen it once and think you get it, you're probably wrong.