🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1gikq6INNra5@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>
>If you want poor people to be able to read, you should give
>them money - not libraries.
>

Mr. Yarvin later compounded his error by writing:
>
>When you spend X dollars on libraries for the poor, instead of giving
>the poor X dollars, what you are saying is:
>
>"You do not have enough money to spend on things you need, but we do not
>trust you to decide what things you need.  Therefore, instead of giving you
>money, which you would not spend wisely, we will give you what we think
>is best for you."
>
	My goodness.  Who ever said that libraries were only for the poor?
Do you believe that libraries are mere book repositories?  Perhaps you
ought to visit one.  Speak to a reference librarian.  You'll find that the
modern library does far more than simply lend books; it is an information
resource.  This may come as a surprise to you, but many people don't
maintain large, private book collections; many do not have any access to
the specialized information that a librarian can provide.  Public libraries
provide these services, and many others, to all of us.
	I see by your internet address that you are somehow connected
to Berkeley where you have, no doubt, had many occassions to make use of
that university's publicly funded library system.  I'd wager that you did
more than check out the latest Danielle Steele novel.  A question: if the
State were to give you a fistful of money and tell you that it was your
"share" of what was *not* spent on Berkeley's libraries, do you think it
would be enough to pay for all the published volumes, journals, periodicals,
and cataloging services the library once provided?  
>If you approve of this attitude, probably the less said the better.
>
	Ditto.



-- 
-John

John J. Humpal -- johnh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu -- short .sig, std. disclaimer