Are libraries a useless, sentimental indulgence in waste?

Did the founding of Google doom the community library? Is every penny we spend today on brick and mortar libraries, and librarians, an utterly useless indulgence in sentimental, but outdated, technology?

I think yes.

With the advent of simple electronic book readers, and virtually unlimited access to uncopyrighted literature via the internet, libraries are today an inferior way to access knowledge both in terms of speed and variety. Brick and mortar libraries cannot compete. They are dinosaurs.

Better to fund simple Internet cafes where people can access Internet search engines, such as Google.

Libraries today are a more insidious force in our society than that of a simple albatross around the neck of the taxpayer. In fact, they are an antisocial, antimoral, antidemocratic force that should really be opposed by all right thinking people.

Many people do not remember when librarians stood up for the rights of pedophiles to access pedophilia from the public library. Indeed, librarians lobbied extensively for the right to provide access to pornography in public libraries. In fact, libraries today are the main trafficker in pornography.

We should not be surprised by this. Libraries have been utterly abandoned by the middle and upper classes in favor of easier access to all forms of written material via the internet. What libraries have been left with is a sort of bottom-feeder clientele of poor, semi-literates, seeking access to government forms and illicit materials. While it is possible that chronically unemployed persons do need access to government forms and such, they hardly need libraries. Indeed, a free computer at the local police stations would more than suffice.

Do not support your local library. It is at best a drain on public resources and at worst an aggressively anti-social influence on society.

The eerie silence of feminists on Islamism

This is an incredible interview with Theodore Dalrymple

FromFROM FrontPageMag.COM

FP: You discuss the horrifying suffering that women endure under the vicious and sadistic structures of Islam’s gender apartheid. You touch on the eerie silence of Western leftist feminists on this issue, noting “Where two pieties – feminism and multi-culturalism – come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.”

To be sure, the Left has long posed as a great champion of women’s rights, gay rights, minorti rights, democratic rights etc. Yet today, it has reached out in solidarity with the most fascistic women-hating, gay-hating, minority-hating and democracy hating force on the face of the earth – Islamism.

What gives? It’s really nothing new though is it? (i.e. the Left’s political pilgrimages to communist gulags etc.)

Dalrymple: I think the problem here is one of a desired self-image. Tolerance is the greatest moral virtue and broadmindedness the greatest intellectual one. Moreover, no decent person can be other than a feminist. People therefore want to be both multiculturalist and feminist. But multiculturalism and feminism obviously clash; therefore, you avoid the necessity to give up one or the other merely by disregarding the phenomena. How you feel about yourself is more important to you than the state of the world.
--

Hat tip to Chas.

This is actually something we NEED! BRAVO MCCAIN

FROM THE AP STORY:

"... MCCAIN said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new (nuclear reactors) by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded."

Of course he couches the plan in language geared to make the fraidy cat liberals secure. Hey IT'S GLOBAL WARMING that's making us build those nukes. 'Cause you guys are going to drown in NYC when the polar ice caps melt!!!

Personally I think drowning everyone in NYC is just the earth correcting an imbalance. It's nature at its best!

And like John McCain, I always want to look for something nice in a person's religion. You know like the buddhists have pretty little chimes they use when they do their nonsensical chants. Ding! The fundy mormons really know how to braid hair. The Hindus with all those 8-armed, monkey-faced, blue gods are like a comic strip on acid. And there is nothing like watching the Shiites beat themselves up to put a smile on my face.

Sorry... I'm off the subject.

But this does put me in the mind of what Chas says about McCain's whole Global Warming thing. Some of the goals of the Global Warming Religion are very conservative: Conserve, preserve, and protect. Nothing wrong with that. Especially if it gets us nuclear power.

You can probably do 'anti global warming' things without forcing us to live without electricity and carry water from the creek. This is going to come as a shock to the Greens, though.

But anyway, even the liberals are not entirely convinced that there is some sort of problem with nuclear power. (After all THE BRILLIANT FRENCH do it!) Check out the NYT Freakonomics column. And also today.

And let us not forget that the liberals were the same chicken shit idiots who exaggerated the risk of nuclear energy in the first place. Now the libs are thinking... well it might not be so great to live in NYC without electricity.

This cheers me up because I am reminded that even liberals really, really prefer to live in civilization, though they may say otherwise.

Big arch

The light was incredible! The wheat fields were shining golden and the sky was slate and in the middle of it all was an astounding rainbow. We could see the whole arch crystal clear. Photos never do God's handiwork justice.

Tonight's storm: at the end of the rainbow

View from the pool: Lovely sunset

What even liberals already knew: No hetero AIDS threat

Never was a threat of AIDS among heterosexuals in America.

Now... IS THERE ***really**** AN AIDS EPIDEMIC AMONG HETEROSEXUALS IN AFRICA?

Or is it just possible that a large number of poor people in Africa are dying of lots of other things, but none so politically-correct as AIDS?

He might be in the Klan, but he's very intelligent, and I'll vote for him

Would black folks say that about a white candidate?

Well, okay, maybe if he is the Democrat nominee. Because black folks vote party, even though that party has never done a damn thing for them.

So... how about us white folks? Will we just say:

Obama, he is a member of the most racist, anti-white church in America and was for 20 years, but he is smart and I think I'll vote for him.

Looks like it!

Evolution as God

Check out this article that perhaps explains how Global Warmongers can see into the future. It's built in!

But, seriously, in this theory a researcher explains that the brain kind of makes up 1/10th of a second of the image to compensate for the time it takes for the true image to arrive at the eye and be translated by the brain.

What I find sort of odd about the article is the researcher repeatedly speaking of evolution as if Evolution is God. "Evolution has seen to it..." he says.

Well... go ahead and correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure everyone will!): Evolution doesn't see to anything because evolution is a blind mechanism of change based (debatedly) on natural selection. Thus there can be no planning in evolution. What you must believe to accept evolution is that, more or less, by coincidence, humans have evolved a useful trait. That is, maybe this very subtle trait occurred as a useful birth defect in a caveman who thus had a tiny advantage hunting and then attracted a hungry mate who passed the trait on to some offspring and in the fullness of time every human everywhere in the world has this one stinking trait. That is evolution. But evolution doesn't plan anything. It doesn't see a need and fill it. It doesn't "see to" anything. God does that.

I really do not like scientists adopting the language of religion when they pretend not to entertain the notion of God and God's works in their own worldview. I can't decide if it is patronizing (this is the only thing the plebes will understand!) or if they themselves can't fully appreciate their own science. They still need God and they call it Evolution.

So...why can't they call it evolution and I'll just go on calling it Jesus? Or, you know, we could just be Unitarians and both of us would say "jesus" but we would mean evolution.

My, my! Is that what they contend?

Quote from the AP article about the children being returned to the polygamist sect:

"...authorities contended all the children were at risk because church teachings pushed underage girls into marriage and sex."

Yes the state authorities in Texas would MUCH PREFER that the state of Texas push underage girls into sex.