09 July 2005
Library reporting dizzy as a bee
The Fresno Bee editors are continuing their relentless support for forcing all purchasers of taxable goods and services in Fresno County to give money to the Fresno County library system. The latest opinion is a "thumbs up" to the voters for supporting the continuance of the library tax in November 2004 so that a record number of people can use the Internet at county libraries in 2005.
Too bad this misses the point.
Is it surprising that people flock to free internet services? The fact that a record number of people are using the internet at the library is simply evidence that the internet is more popular than ever. There are also record numbers of internet hosts (domain names and IP addresses) on the internet, only a tiny fraction of which come from public libraries. So what is the point? There are dozens of private sellers of computers and internet cafes around town who would love to have more business and create more jobs selling internet services that the libraries are providing free through the forcible taxation of their neighbors against the will of many of those neighbors.
Last fall, the editors played the do-it-for-the-children card to justify the tax, but now they are claiming that it is great that adults are using the internet at the library as well. Should it be a source of pride that many middle class adults are using free library services paid for forcibly by someone else who may be even less wealthy than they?
Then, the editors seem proud of the fact that Home Depot used the library to recruit new employees for its upcoming Selma store. You mean Home Depot could not afford a tent and a bank of computers to sign up applicants on their own dime (or is their owner, also owner of the NFL Atlanta Falcons, paying way to much for quarterback Michael Vick)? Is the next Bee library story going to applaud the Woodward Park branch for hosting Central Valley Coyotes' Arena Football games (no doubt it could be done; there's enough room!)?
I feel no pride in contributing to the continued fostering of a dependency ethic in our county. The LPFC opposition to the library tax was NOT about the value of the internet or of education or of books or of an informed citizenry, as the Bee and other tried to couch the debate. Our opposition was about the dependency of some citizens on the forced contribution of other citizens and the damage that dependency causes. A library system that is totally funded by private donations and user fees and memberships would elicit no opposition from our organization.
Riverside County has used outsourcing to great advantage for their taxpayers (of course, the Bee could not see its way to report on this success, even though I alerted a Bee reporter to the Riverside case, because the Bee was in campaign mode). And Salinas, a poorer city one-sixth the size of Fresno County, has raised nearly $600,000 for its library in less than a year. If indeed the Fresno community values its libraries and the benefits they offer, there is no reason why the library cannot be funded without the un-neighborly act of taxation.
Unfortunately, we are going to be treated to eight more years of cute, but misleading library stories.
Too bad this misses the point.
Is it surprising that people flock to free internet services? The fact that a record number of people are using the internet at the library is simply evidence that the internet is more popular than ever. There are also record numbers of internet hosts (domain names and IP addresses) on the internet, only a tiny fraction of which come from public libraries. So what is the point? There are dozens of private sellers of computers and internet cafes around town who would love to have more business and create more jobs selling internet services that the libraries are providing free through the forcible taxation of their neighbors against the will of many of those neighbors.
Last fall, the editors played the do-it-for-the-children card to justify the tax, but now they are claiming that it is great that adults are using the internet at the library as well. Should it be a source of pride that many middle class adults are using free library services paid for forcibly by someone else who may be even less wealthy than they?
Then, the editors seem proud of the fact that Home Depot used the library to recruit new employees for its upcoming Selma store. You mean Home Depot could not afford a tent and a bank of computers to sign up applicants on their own dime (or is their owner, also owner of the NFL Atlanta Falcons, paying way to much for quarterback Michael Vick)? Is the next Bee library story going to applaud the Woodward Park branch for hosting Central Valley Coyotes' Arena Football games (no doubt it could be done; there's enough room!)?
I feel no pride in contributing to the continued fostering of a dependency ethic in our county. The LPFC opposition to the library tax was NOT about the value of the internet or of education or of books or of an informed citizenry, as the Bee and other tried to couch the debate. Our opposition was about the dependency of some citizens on the forced contribution of other citizens and the damage that dependency causes. A library system that is totally funded by private donations and user fees and memberships would elicit no opposition from our organization.
Riverside County has used outsourcing to great advantage for their taxpayers (of course, the Bee could not see its way to report on this success, even though I alerted a Bee reporter to the Riverside case, because the Bee was in campaign mode). And Salinas, a poorer city one-sixth the size of Fresno County, has raised nearly $600,000 for its library in less than a year. If indeed the Fresno community values its libraries and the benefits they offer, there is no reason why the library cannot be funded without the un-neighborly act of taxation.
Unfortunately, we are going to be treated to eight more years of cute, but misleading library stories.
# posted by Rodney Austin @ 1:48 PM 
