Hmm. It looks like her real complaint is the idea of paying taxes, and particularly the idea of getting what she wants by having other people help pay for it. She doesn't seem to have any problem getting what she needs from the government, but she doesn't need books the way she needs roads, water, or electricity.
There is a brief mention of the "insidious influences lurking on their shelves," but that doesn't seem to be her primary point. I don't particularly agree with her - discussing books I'd read with my mother was a good introduction to critical thinking - but I can see her point.
The insidious influences are anything not distinctly dominionist Christian. She wants to protect her children from any book that might open up unChristian thoughts to their little minds. Basically, she wants the opportunity to censor what her kids read, and doesn't want to pay for the opening up of ideas to other kids whose parents also censor their reading material.
"The insidious influences are anything not distinctly dominionist Christian."
I can't argue that.
"Basically, she wants the opportunity to censor what her kids read..."
No argument with this statement, either. But the refusal to pay for libraries seems to come from a "small government" mindset, rather than any opposition to paying for other people, or any interest in backing up parents who protect their children to the same level that she does. She's talking about taxes for libraries like it's picking other people's pockets to pay for the books she uses.
She spends six paragraphs arguing that point (maybe 5.1 paragraphs, given that one of them is a very short sentence), and out of that, there are two sentences that imply her interest in controlling what her children read. It's treated as a side issue in this article.
I suspect that she'd be against community centers, public swimming pools, and parks, because they aren't necessary. (Well, maybe not the parks. But I'm not placing bets.)
I agree that she's strongly dominionist Christian, and that it influences her thinking. But I think her opposition to public libraries comes from a different source.
It's not surprising that, given her clear distaste for public education, she wouldn't support any sort of public educational system after the K-12 years either - including the public library. It makes me wonder where she does support use of broad taxes to benefit the few, though. Does she support taxes to fund college scholarships for minorities or people in need? What about rehabilitation programs for drug users? Funding for fire departments? ("Who needs 'em? I have a smoke alarm, a fire extinguisher, and I pray to God to bless this house. Let those firemen get a REAL job.") Whatever her real rationale is, it comes across as an inability to see beyond hers and her family's immediate needs - especially in this case, where a public library is a resource that she is always free to tap into but chooses not to (as opposed to, say, paying for social security although she is unable to make use of it until later in life).
Anyway, unless she has a problem with democracy on the whole, I think she can't make any real progress anyway: the public will decide what it feels is needed, whether she thinks she'll be able to take advantage of it or not. The reality is that not everything can be run like a private membership club (with fees), or else 99% of government programs wouldn't stand a chance.
Not to say that all people with similar mindsets are selfish, though - there is always a limit to how many and what kind of government programs to enact. Striking the balance between enacting programs to benefit society and reducing the burden on the public is always a challenge. But in this case I think the benefits of a public library system VERY CLEARLY outweigh the costs, and that's why I say that she comes across as being very narrow-minded.
I do think that her desire to control what her children wants to read plays significantly into this narrow-mindedness, but as I'm not her I can't say for certain. It seems that her choice of "public libraries" for today's attack (instead of, for example, art museums / public broadcasting / retirement benefits for government officials / something more expensive with a smaller target) just HAS to come from some other personal bone to pick.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2006-12-04 11:35 am
no subject
There is a brief mention of the "insidious influences lurking on their shelves," but that doesn't seem to be her primary point. I don't particularly agree with her - discussing books I'd read with my mother was a good introduction to critical thinking - but I can see her point.
no subject
no subject
I understand why she says what she says. I still think she's wrong, but I understand her viewpoint.
no subject
no subject
I can't argue that.
"Basically, she wants the opportunity to censor what her kids read..."
No argument with this statement, either. But the refusal to pay for libraries seems to come from a "small government" mindset, rather than any opposition to paying for other people, or any interest in backing up parents who protect their children to the same level that she does. She's talking about taxes for libraries like it's picking other people's pockets to pay for the books she uses.
She spends six paragraphs arguing that point (maybe 5.1 paragraphs, given that one of them is a very short sentence), and out of that, there are two sentences that imply her interest in controlling what her children read. It's treated as a side issue in this article.
I suspect that she'd be against community centers, public swimming pools, and parks, because they aren't necessary. (Well, maybe not the parks. But I'm not placing bets.)
I agree that she's strongly dominionist Christian, and that it influences her thinking. But I think her opposition to public libraries comes from a different source.
no subject
Anyway, unless she has a problem with democracy on the whole, I think she can't make any real progress anyway: the public will decide what it feels is needed, whether she thinks she'll be able to take advantage of it or not. The reality is that not everything can be run like a private membership club (with fees), or else 99% of government programs wouldn't stand a chance.
no subject
I do think that her desire to control what her children wants to read plays significantly into this narrow-mindedness, but as I'm not her I can't say for certain. It seems that her choice of "public libraries" for today's attack (instead of, for example, art museums / public broadcasting / retirement benefits for government officials / something more expensive with a smaller target) just HAS to come from some other personal bone to pick.
no subject
That's part of why I don't agree with her viewpoint. She's fine. Who cares about all those people that can't afford to buy the books they need?