I was surprised earlier this year at the kinds of fees the Austin public libraries wanted to start charging.
It seemed to me that the fees were arbitrary and probably would keep a lot of people away, not something you want to do if you want to keep a library open these days.
Now comes the Round Rock City Council eliminating fees for non-residents (residents have not paid fees in the past anyway).
Before last May's action, the library charged a card fee of $25 per year for individuals and $40 for families. That seems steep enough to me that I'd have to think about getting a card myself.
So, what's been the result?
The result has been pretty spectacular, according to an article in the Austin American-Statesman. Since last year, the library has seen membership grow 34 percent to 99,000.
Not all of that growth is because the fees were dropped, but Michelle Cervantes, library director, says a lot of the growth is due to the change.
Of course, there are whiners -- people in Round Rock who feel like they're paying taxes for the library while the nonresidents aren't, and that's not fair. But, those nonresidents and a whole lot more are using their streets and sidewalks and are depending on law-enforcement to be available even if they don't pay taxes.
There is so much violent content in our movies, on television, in books, magazines and newspapers, it's just pervasive, culturally normal in American life.
So, I guess I will seem like a nit-picking dolt to complain about today's addition to the cultural millieu -- "The Good Dinosaur" from Disney and Pixar.
I have only seen the trailers, so I'm just basing an opinion on those.
It just irritates me that there's another doggone movie out there that acts like it is an historical and scientific fact that dinosaurs and humans occupied space on the planet at the same time. They did not.
Cute children's books and other movies aside, it's irritating because this wrong-headed notion is once again reinforced in impressionable young minds.
And that matters because eventually they will grow up and what they think and believe will have consequences, and it's beyond possible that all these images of dinosaurs and people will be stuck there in their heads.
After all, look at what "Bambi" did for hunters.
A shout-out here to The Wall Street Journal for publishing some actual factual material in yesterday's edition about library books and various kinds of bugs.
Nobdy's ever revealed to me a concern about getting bedbugs or the flu from our library books, but apparently that bothers some people. Enough so that the Journal had the piece in its Health and Wellness section entitled: "The Burning Question: Are There Critters and Germs in My Library Books?"
The short answer from the Journal's assembled experts: No. Or, probably not.
The former is especially true for germs, most of which just don't like to live in places that aren't warm and moist, and most books are neither.
One expert said you might find bedbugs in books, but it's unlikely. And if you worried, just put the books and related bags in your clothes dryer for awhile.
You know, really, there are so many other things to worry about. Like a Syrian terrorist sneaking into Texas via the federal refugee relocation program.
Why is "cool" still cool?
Frankly, I did not know that "cool" was still cool out there in the world beyond Wimberley. I figured I might actually be the only person extant still using that particular word to describe a person or a thing or a situation.
How cool to know that cool still is cool.
But, how come?
The New York Times op-ed section answers the question in Sunday's editions in an item by Jonah Berger of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Who knew that college professors were concerned about the longterm viabillity of a term like "cool?"
Turns out, they have been. And they have found that "cool" retains its resilience because of its reference to the senses. We people hang onto identifying terms or metaphors that appeal to our senses longer and more tenaciously than we do other terms not so related.
Maybe that explains, then, why stuff just isn't "groovy" anymore.
When Theodore Geisel began writing his famous children's books in 1957 I was too old to be exposed to them.
Instead, I ran across them about 15 years later when I had a child of my own. I remember reading The Cat in the Hat to my girls, and a whole host of other Dr. Seuss books that had been published since TCITH originallky came out.
And I am certainly not alone. The Dr. Seuss books are among the most popular ever written, both at the time they were first published and even today.
Dan Kopf, writing in a blog for Priceonomics, notes that the most amazing thing about Dr. Seuss books is their persisting popularity. In 2013, he writes, nearly 5 million books by Ted Geisel were sold, a 50 percent increase over the number sold in 2010.
At the recent Friends of the Library book sale, I spent a good bit of time poring through children's books. My wife and I have a new grandson, now about four months old, and I wanted to find some for him. Luckily, I tripped over a couple -- not The Cat in the Hat but some newer ones. And so yet another generation will learn about that delicious repaste -- green eggs and ham.
Page 36 of 103