In Recession, Libraries Are Booming

(CBS)  In a town used to lining up for celebrities, these days the long lines in Los Angeles are forming outside an unlikely place: the public library. CBS News correspondent Sandra Hughes reports.

In tough economic times it's becoming the hot spot for just about everyone.

It's standing room only during children's programs. Many of the people who attend are regulars, like Melanie Jarvid and her son, Aaron.

"Now with how the economy is, we've been coming more often and checking out books more often," Jarvid said.

In 2008, 18 million people visited Los Angeles public libraries. That's two million more than the previous year.

Many are recently unemployed and coming for help: every computer terminal is being used and librarians have become job counselors.

Meydani Perucho makes frequent trips to the L.A. public library, but says it's the only one.

"This is actually the first and only library I've been to," Perucho said.

For Zach Pond, who graduated last April with an MBA - but no job - the library is his office and job center.

"It's quiet it's a place to work," said Pond. "You feel like you are moving forward"

Is it a place to be productive? "Absolutely, absolutely," Pond said.

Nationwide more people applied for library cards last year than anytime since they started keeping records in 1990. Just as library funding is being drastically reduced.

Cities just don't have the money to spare with shrinking budgets and more urgent needs.

Peter Persic, the Los Angeles public library spokesmen, warns that, "At a time when people need libraries most, some aren't able to meet that demand and in fact are even being cut back or closed."

In Philadelphia, protestors fought a plan to close 11 libraries. Still, hours will be reduced.

Today, two of three braches in Troy, N.Y., will close. And Muncie, Ind., has plans to close three of its five branches.

All of this is happening as more people are re-discovering the value of the public library.

Maggie Johnson is the head librarian at palms library. Johnson said getting an item at the library is, "free unless you don't return it on time, and then you have to pay the fine."

But everyone will pay the price if budget cuts mean libraries aren't there when people need them most.

[spencerafreeman]

Now New Yorkers can do more than just check out free books at their local library. The Science, Industry and Business branch has expanded to help those looking for jobs. You can check it out here: http://blogs.journalism.cuny.edu/interactive2010/2009/09/25/job-seekers-get-help/

[rational_1]

..... only if you think that that communism and capitalism are the two extreme ends of a scale, and socialism is EVERYTHING in between. In which case your original argument is STILL wrong and mine is STILL right!
Posted by hower4 at 02:49 PM : Feb 03, 2009

What? You''re quite right that communism and capitalism are at opposite ends of an economic spectrum but you provide no evidence that socialism is everything in between. Given all the similarities between the socialism and communism (the whole state owned/operated ideology) you''d have a hard time convincing anyone that socialism belongs anywhere near capitalism instead of being bunched over on the other side of the economic spectrum with communism. So the whole argument devolves into, how much of a difference is a difference, and in my opinion the commonality of state control and/or ownership that''s seen in socialist and communist ideologies, makes them little different from each other and both a lot different than capitalism.

[rational_1]

You can''''t see past the end of your nose can you? There is a difference between the state owning everything and the state not owning everything. Agreed? If so, your argument is wrong, isn''''t it?
Posted by hower4 at 02:08 PM : Feb 03, 2009

Really? Earlier you wrote ''The real difference is ownership of property. Communism requires that ALL property is owned by the state. That means that an individual OWNS NOTHING. Socialism only advocates that essential means of production and distribution (such as electric power infrastructure) are owned and/or regulated by the state."

So the big difference between communism and socialism is the degree of state ownership, which is the exact point I''ve been making, and to which you earlier agreed. Basically socialism and communism are the same thing just to varying degrees. This just reinforces my initial post from God knows how many pages ago.

You''re really splitting hairs here.

[rational_1]

Then why the f*** did you ask "Who determines to what extent"????? You''''re a total d*ckhead, aren''''t you?
Posted by hower4 at 01:50 PM : Feb 03, 2009

I meant, the government itself, federal employees who work in various bureaus, state/provincial employees, local apparatchiks? Why any particular group and not others and why should they get to set the rules and who ensures it''s fair?

Better watch your temper and blood pressure - that socialist health care system you''re in probably can''t afford too many 21st century treatments.

[rational_1]

Eventually you seem to have accepted that I''''m right about ALL the points I made,
Posted by hower4 at 01:41 PM : Feb 03, 2009

I think you better lay off the hallucinogens if this is the conclusion you''ve arrived at. You seem to think that there is a big distinction between socialism and communism in that in one case the government regulates many (all?) industries and owns others, while in the other case the government owns and regulates everything. Sounds like a sliding scale to me, underscoring both my and Lenin''s opinions that socialism is just a stepping stone towards communism. You''re dealing with semantics here buddy.

[rational_1]

There you go! Once again the typical bigoted Yank shows his true colours and blows any semblance of a logical argument! I don''''t know why anyone wastes their time expecting any Americans to act reasonably. Violence and bigotry is all they know.
Posted by hower4 at 01:25 PM : Feb 03, 2009

If you look back through this ''discussion'' you''ll see it''s you who is indulging in histrionics and name calling. I take that as a sign of desperation.

[rational_1]

The democratically elected government would determine the degree of regulation of the corner store or the national bank, or is that too difficult for an American to understand?
Posted by hower4 at 01:21 PM : Feb 03, 2009

I can''t hold back any longer - I''m a Canadian citizen and thus well versed in socialist nonsense!

Now getting back to your point - of course I know the government would determine this and there would doubtlessly be thousands of bureaucrats employed to write the rules, interpret the rules and enforce the rules. Typical socialist government - few workers and lots of parasites to interfere with them.

[rational_1]

I can sure name one - Karl Marx. In The Communist Manifesto Marx describes a socialist transition society, before the ultimate achievement of the Communist state.
--------------------------
Posted by rational_1 at 12:40 PM : Feb 03, 2009

No, he certainly does not! If anything, the transition to communism is an area that Marx fails to describe at all, let alone as socialism.
Posted by hower4 at 12:53 PM : Feb 03, 2009

You''re right - it was Lenin who wrote ''The goal of socialism is communism'' (I get all these Commies mixed up sometimes).

[rational_1]

state". Yes, the mom and pop grocery store (or farm or factory) would be regulated to some extent in a socialist state, but they WOULD STILL OWN THE STORE AND THE PROFITS FROM IT. The degree of regulation would depend upon the degree to which the society needs the resource in question. A small store would require very little, whilst a national bank or electricity generator would require much more.
Posted by hower4 at 12:45 PM : Feb 03, 2009

Regulated to some extent? Who determines to what extent? Some faceless bureaucrat a thousand miles away? What determines the degree of regulation? The needs of the society? Who determines this and by what means? You throw this stuff out making it look like the store owner or farmer will get to keep his profits and own the store/farm under a socialist government when in reality his ability to run his company or farm will be curtailed and governed by others (the socialist government), which will of course affect his profits. And we all know how well those centralized 5 year plans work out, don''t we?

[rational_1]

Even the communists state that socialism is just a step towards communism.
--------------------------
Posted by rational_1 at 10:50 AM : Feb 03, 2009

I guess you''''re talking about ''''the communists'''' who are the amorphous evil cabal that your government has been trying to scare you with for decades.

Can you name them? No, I thought not. Even if it were true, it might be slightly more credible if a socialist had said it!
Posted by hower4 at 11:30 AM : Feb 03, 2009

I can sure name one - Karl Marx. In The Communist Manifesto Marx describes a socialist transition society, before the ultimate achievement (God help us!) of the Communist state.