To my library-loving critics

My column in North County Times questioning the ancillary functions of public libraries brought a storm of protest from library lovers. Well, a squall at least.
http://nctimes.com/articles/2008/05/29/opinion/rider/doc483ee3f9b66bd295...

What struck me about the criticism is that many of these supposedly well-educated folks apparently read no further than the headline before firing away in the online comments section. Either that, or their vaunted reading comprehension remains at third-grade level.

Such complainers opined that we need books to read, so proposing closing public libraries is a nutty idea.

Powerful rebuttals -– to an assertion I never made. My thesis was that the secondary functions of libraries are dwindling in importance, so new expansion programs for libraries are unjustified.

As a percent of population, few people use libraries. Most that do, use it to borrow books.

It's a given that this book storage and lending service is a taxpayer-subsidized function. So be it. (However, there is an excellent argument that the library should charge some need-based user fees so that people who use a library pay more of the cost than does the general public.)

Only a tiny subset of society actually hangs out at a library. A library may appear busy, but most of the folks camped there are regulars who show up weekly, if not daily. To tax everybody for this clubby retreat used by so few people is not a good use of taxpayer dollars -– especially considering our more pressing needs.

But for the reading impaired, let me repeat: We need libraries for lending books.

In the forum section I received a snooty, insulting rebuttal to my column. While excelling in silly name-calling (I'm a "bureaucrat"?), this self-declared "serious scholar" demonstrated an appalling ignorance of his topic, coupled with a greedy desire for taxpayers to fund his cozy retreat.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/06/02/opinion/commentary/z9720475e3....

For instance, he knocks down a straw man argument I did not make, claiming I declared that the Internet is the only source needed by researching scholars. My column explained that the few scholars who need more detailed or original source material can easily be handled by a library. Expanded facilities for researchers are not needed. Probably 99% of research done by the public today is done via computer.

The commenter then intones that poor people need library computers because they can't afford "software that is too expensive for them to purchase, such as Microsoft Office." This "serious scholar" knows little of what is available on the Internet he so disdains.

Most commonly desired computer software functions are available for free on the Internet. For Microsoft Office needs, the best choice is OpenOffice.org, a free software suite with word processor, spreadsheet, database, presentation and other good stuff. OpenOffice.org is absolutely free and legal to download and install. I've used it for months with terrific results.

The commenter boasts that he is going to give money to libraries. Great! All library fans should do so.

But voters need to reassess what library functions require taxpayer support, and what do not. One person's compulsive need to hang out in a plush library is not a taxpayer priority.