I know... I know... I'm just as shocked that I just typed that post title as you are reading it, but I have to agree completely with Berkeley's choice of books in their public library. Michelle Malkin points to this post about the books that seem to grace the shelves at the Berkeley Public Library:

You have 0 copies of Michelle's 3 books, yet 33 copies of Al Franken's books. Michelle even does her own research, unlike Franken. You have only 3 copies of Rush Limbaugh's books, yet 30 copies of Michael Moore's books, including Estupidos Hombres Blancos, presumably for the benefit of illegal aliens, who are tragically unable to read Michelle's Invasion.

You have a single Sean Hannity book, 1 Robert Spencer book, & 3 copies of Michael Savage's first book (he's written more). It's nice you have 11 copies of Ann Coulter's books, but you also have 11 copies of What's the Matter With Kansas, 11 copies of Nickel & Dimed, 16 ridiculous copies of Bait & Switch, & 48 volumes of Chomsky wisdom.

Now I can fully understand why Michelle is a little upset over this. They're her books after all, and she of course wants to get as large of a readership as possible. This is natural, and there is nothing wrong with this. But to be frank, I find nothing wrong with Berkeley not having a single one of her books.

First of all... let's not kid ourselves. Berkeley isn't the center for conservative thought in this country. To suggest otherwise, would be pretty disingenuous. Berkeley is a very liberal town, and they're proud of it. So the fact that their public library is catering to the demands of the public... is well... refreshing. Let's ask a very basic question here. Is a book by Michelle Malkin in great demand at the Berkeley Public Library? If it were to go out on the shelves, how often would it be checked out? Would it ever be checked out? And its not as if they don't have any conservative titles.

Now then... let me say that I have nothing against Michelle. I read her blog quite often. You'll notice that its even in my blogroll. I say all this because I really don't like public libraries... at all. I don't go to them, and am not a fan of having my tax dollars wasted on a service I don't use. I like to buy my books, and if I want to... I sell them to a used book store. I would love to see public libraries disappear completely, and instead follow a Blockbuster model where you paid for a membership and rented books out. That way people who used books would actually pay for them, and those who don't go there... well... don't pay for it. What a concept. Don't even get me started on libraries that offer DVDs and VHS tapes for free rental, which then compete directly with movie rental stores.

So when I see Berkeley listening to its customers (read taxpayers), almost as if it were a business instead of a government owned monopoly, I think... at least they're doing something right. What I fear the most for the Berkeley Library is that a bunch of people will now start complaining to them over the internet about how they don't have certain books, and the majority of those people will have never stepped in that building, or never will. What's the point in that? If you live in Berkeley, then by all means, complain if you don't see a title you want... but also realize that you're probably in the minority.