Call me a utopian leftist, and dismiss me as such if you please, but as ST affirms, the homeless know what libraries are for-- the full range of their possibilites.
It's hard to conceive of being in a condition where what is free is essential.
I am relatively safe financially now, but I have been ( and was born) poor.
The fact that libraries, public ones ( and the state college libraries, in which I was welcome even before I was a registered student) are subsidized by the government, state and local ( he reiterated), means they are subject to the work of governing bodies elected by the people.
Do you think Musharraf would have encouraged any library containing works that inveighed against his military/ civilian presidency/hegemonic dictatorship? In Pakistan the general population took to the streets to demand a reinstatement of their constitution, for they have had rich experience with no public recourse against the decisions of politicians and military leaders.
( an interesting link-- not entirely objective, of course-- but pretty sturdy, on the history of democracy in Pakistan-- try some of the hyperlinks too . . .)
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004937.php
Libraries can be subversive instruments-- can distribute and encourage dissenting views on government, social structure, military campaigns, and most important of all perhaps, a skeptical, multifaceted series of views on the nature and history of leadership.
Understanding Kennedy's (JFK) attitude toward Cuba in 1961 can help us understand Hugo Chavez today . . .
Knowing the Watergate period of scheming and mendacity by the President and the White House staff can help us understand our current administration . . .
A pardon for Nixon by Gerald Ford can be seen to resemble the pardon for Scooter Libby by G.W. Bush . . .
But if information is "inconvenient" for the private corporation managing public libraries ( because that "corp" has lobbyists seeking favors from the current corrupt administration) , why-- that content mysteriously "might not be available at the moment" from the library.
Consider what censorship was exercised on NPR under the Bush cadre through his friend, the CEO of Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... oadcasting
and CPB is a "private" non- profit corporation.
I have personal experience working as an employee in a county hospital that went from non-profit to profit legal status. The staff ( including, nominally, the MD's-- the only ones who had any fiscal clout) and the care plans and procedures, not to mention labyrinthine insurance permutations, were seriously affected, and not for the better, by that shift.
"For profit" means just that: not reasonable service, not practical service, not humane service, not employee-based service, but PROFITABLE service. Everything is modified to produce profit.
Call me a utopian leftist and dismiss the comments above if you like.
--Z