In Recession, Libraries Are Booming

CBS Evening News: Public Libraries Are Rising In Popularity - But Funding Is Rapidly Declining

(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.

[rational_1]

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. Individuals can and will own property or systems. This is in fact a HUGE difference that neither you nor the vast majority of Americans seem able to understand. Perhaps you do now........
Posted by hower4 at 11:11 AM : Feb 03, 2009

My response to this is that a difference which makes no difference is no difference. You''re basically saying that in a socialist country you own your shirt but not your company or farm, while in a communist country you own neither. Whoop-de-doo. And how do you define ''essential means of distribution''? Does that include the mom and pop grocery store?

[rational_1]

Have you noticed the difference between communism and socialism yet? It''''s pretty obvious and YOU DID NOT mention it in your earlier definition. Come on, try to rescue the American reputation for stupidity!
Posted by hower4 at 10:36 AM : Feb 03, 2009

One thing I did notice is that the Websters definition of communism incorporates the word socialism. So from your definitions I see nuances of difference between the two. With Communism ''property is owned by the community'' but with socialism ''the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole''. Big whoop of a difference - in both cases it is the state that makes decisions about redistribution of resources, money, etc.

You''re sinking here if your goal is to try to convince me there''s any substantive difference between socialism and communism. Even the communists state that socialism is just a step towards communism.

[rational_1]

No, you didn''''t say anything of the sort!!!!! You gave a crass and juvenile definition. Admit that you were wrong and I might enlighten you.
Posted by hower4 at 10:18 AM : Feb 03, 2009

The first part about a communist just being an armed socialist is my way of stating that I believe communists are essentially totalitarian socialists. The rest of my definition I stand behind and it was not juvenile (I noticed you haven''t corrected it). But let''s see how Websters defines the two.

Communism - 1: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; 2. a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

Socialism - 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

[rational_1]

By your definition ALL governments are communist, because they ALL redistribute wealth as they see fit. You seem to have forgotten a very simple principle, much like your own government! Would you like to admit you are wrong, or will you just run away now you have been proved to be the Idiot Yank that you are?
Posted by hower4 at 09:39 AM : Feb 03, 2009

I never said that the American government WASN''T socialist so how was I wrong? So Einstein, why don''t you instead educate us all and tell us what is the big difference between socialism and communism. I said they both fell on a continuum of increasing government interference in the rights of people to use their wealth as they wish.

[rational_1]

By the way, anyone who adds gratuitous French phrases is a pretentious tosser!
Posted by hower4 at 09:39 AM : Feb 03, 2009

Just trying to help you Euro-trash feel at home here.

[rational_1]

I just dont understand some Americans,really I dont at all.Socialism has NOTHING to do with commmuism.
Take a look at Canada,take a look at Western Europe,
Posted by noaanhc at 09:03 AM : Feb 03, 2009

Au contraire. A communist is basically a socialist with a big gun! In essence, the principles underlying the two are the same - that the state has the power and right to redistribute wealth as it sees fit. Any differences you can come up with to differentiate the two are minor by comparison and deal with implementation. Socialism and communism are the same philosophies just taken to different degrees. They both suck!

[noaanhc]

I just dont understand some Americans,really I dont at all.Socialism has NOTHING to do with commmuism.
Take a look at Canada,take a look at Western Europe,
did these nations who are all socialist democracys later go on to embrace communism,OF COURSE THEY DIDNT DO THIS!!!!! You people need to begin to educate yourselves on the true meaning of socialist democracy
and do as I did,visit Canada and vist Europe and see for yourself that Canadians and Europeans really do live in freedom just as Americans do.You have been brainwashed all your lives to believe that socialism is evil and must not come to America.

[ballpen1]

Well, i use my local library from time to time, but more for bedtime reading on some obscure subject i pick for that month. If i have to find out things fast i use Wikipedia. I sometimes get lost in all the pages, following interessting links, and end up with much more information than i wanted, but that''s OK, it''s a way to broaden ones mind and get an education (in contrast to formal learning in school). If the Internet wouldn''t exist right now someone would have to invent it! ;-)

[endeavor40]

It would be a great benefit to the World now, if the Republicans would take the time now and learn how to read and spell.

[billpl-2009]

you know...

if they keep saying we''re in a recession

we''re actually going to end up having one