Deer In Headlines II
By Gery Deer
(Editor’s note: This edition also appears in other publications under the title “Checked Out.”)
As a kid, the local branch of the public library was in the old opera house near the center of our small farm town. It was cramped and dimly lit, and the reference desk was under the boarded-up grand staircase, giving it a sort of cubby-hole feel. I spent a good bit of time there. After school, I’d do my homework and wait for my mom to get off work. In the decades before the Internet, our library was the window to the world. But now, that window may be closing.
Ohio public libraries are funded, in part, by the Public Library Fund (PLF), which provides 1.7% of the state’s General Revenue Fund (GRF) as of this writing. However, the Republican-sponsored Ohio House Bill 96, proposed in early April of this year, would cut library funding by more than $100 million across the state. Why?
Governments have historically manipulated populations by controlling education and the media. They ban books that don’t align with their values, use defunding threats to force public and school libraries to cultivate materials for their purposes, and limit access to information. That way, voters remain ignorant, subjugated, out of touch, and pliable.
And before anyone says, “you just hate republicans,” they’re not the only ones to try this. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a democrat, proposed the same budget cuts a dozen years ago, and the republicans cried foul. Remember, the liberal left still regularly tries to “rewrite” some books to remove language and ideas they find offensive. So, it has gone both ways. This time, however, the danger is more palpable.
Over the last decade, public libraries have become frequent targets for budget cuts, with some policymakers arguing that digital access negates their necessity. But here’s the truth: libraries remain vital to the well-being of communities, and continued funding by federal and state governments is not just important—it’s essential. Without it, we risk depriving countless individuals of educational opportunities, civic engagement, and economic mobility.
Public libraries provide free access to knowledge for everyone (so long as their contents are not censored), regardless of socioeconomic status. Whether it’s a student researching for school, a small business owner seeking resources, or a job seeker brushing up on interview skills, libraries level the playing field in ways no digital paywall ever could. Eliminate government funding, and these services vanish, disproportionately affecting low-income communities. Instead of fostering informed citizens, we create a deeper knowledge divide, where only those who can afford education can access it.
A democratic society thrives when its citizens are informed, and libraries serve as safe spaces where people can access unbiased, factual information. They offer literacy programs, historical archives, and meeting spaces for community discussions—all of which help create engaged and empowered citizens. Where do people go for credible information when libraries close because of defunding? Unfortunately, they turn to the Internet and social media – the global misinformation machines. That’s a terrifying thought.
Libraries don’t just provide books—many offer essential services that help individuals improve their financial stability. They provide free internet access for job searches, resume-building workshops, business mentorship programs, and resources to help entrepreneurs. Government officials profess at nauseum about supporting small businesses and the workforce. Then they gut library funding and undermine those initiatives directly. If libraries disappear, so do these essential services, making it much harder for people to improve their situations.
Defunding libraries erodes the foundation of an educated, informed, and economically mobile society, which is exactly what this administration hopes to achieve. Without them, misinformation flourishes, the digital divide widens, and people lose access to critical resources for success. Libraries are not relics of the past—they are the lifeblood of communities, supporting everything from literacy to local economies.
So, before cutting another dollar from public libraries, policymakers should ask themselves: Do they really want a future where only the privileged have access to knowledge? Without funding, that’s exactly where we’re headed.
Good people on both sides of the aisle must speak out against this kind of censorship and ignorance. In Ohio, you can contact your state representative or State Representative Matt Huffman, currently Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives: email rep78@ohiohouse.gov or call 614-466-6344.
The Jamestown Comet 
Civil Discourse, communication, Conversation, Critical Thinking, debate, Deer In Headlines, Family Relationships, Gery Deer, Human Nature, opinion, Political Polarization, politics, Social Commentary, Understanding
Debate is not conversation
In Education, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Uncategorized on June 14, 2026 at 9:08 amDeer In Headlines
By Gery Deer
I have family members I can’t talk politics with. That’s not because they’re bad people, ignorant people, or people I don’t care about. They’re some of the smartest, hardest-working, most generous people I know. We’d help each other move furniture, fix a flat tire, or get through a family crisis without hesitation. But the moment politics enters the conversation, everything changes.
What makes it frustrating is that I’m usually not trying to change anyone’s mind. As a journalist, I’ve spent much of my career talking with people whose backgrounds, values, and beliefs differ from my own. I’ve interviewed politicians, activists, business owners, lobbyists, farmers, teachers, veterans, and everyday citizens from every imaginable perspective. My job was never to win an argument. It was to understand why people believed what they believed.
Unfortunately, that’s not always what happens around the dinner table anymore. Some people have become so hard-wired into their political identities that every discussion feels like a loyalty test. Questioning a policy suddenly becomes an attack on the tribe – or cult, depending on how you see it. Asking for clarification becomes immediate proof that you’re uninformed. Offering a different perspective becomes evidence that you’ve been misled. The conversation stops being about ideas and starts becoming about defending a team.
That’s the difference between a conversation and a debate. A conversation is an exploration. The goal is understanding. A debate is a competition. The goal is victory. Both have value in the right setting, but problems arise when people think they’re having one while participating in the other.
I’ve watched it happen countless times. Someone mentions a news story. Another person responds with an opinion. A third person offers a different interpretation. At first, everyone is simply exchanging thoughts. Then someone decides that understanding isn’t enough. Someone begins trying to prove another person wrong. The shift is subtle but unmistakable.
Questions disappear. Statements become sharper. Opinions are tossed in as facts, lobbed like verbal hand grenades. Listening becomes, well, nonexistent. Instead of learning something, people prepare rebuttals. Rather than consider another perspective, they look for weaknesses to exploit. The discussion has transformed from a conversation into a debate.
If no one recognizes what’s happening, the debate quickly deteriorates into an argument. That’s when voices rise, and interruptions begin. People assign motives rather than address ideas. You’ve probably heard the phrases before. “You only think that because…” or “You’re just saying that because…” Once those words enter the discussion, the original topic has pretty much vanished. The focus becomes defending pride, identity, and ego.
The irony is that arguments rarely – more like never – change minds but usually accomplish the opposite. The harder people push, the more firmly others cling to their existing beliefs. Nobody wants to feel cornered, embarrassed, or dismissed. Even when valid points are being made, they’re lost beneath the emotional weight of the conflict.
Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had ended with complete disagreement. Nobody switched sides. Nobody waved a white flag. Nobody declared victory. Yet both people walked away with a better understanding of how the other saw the world. That’s not failure. That’s success.
Understanding doesn’t require agreement. It doesn’t require compromise on deeply held principles. It simply requires that we recognize that intelligent people can reach different conclusions based on their experience. When we approach disagreement with curiosity instead of combativeness, we create opportunities to learn something new.
Communities depend on that ability. Families depend on it even more. If every disagreement becomes a contest, relationships eventually become casualties. People stop talking. Gatherings become tense. Entire subjects become off-limits because nobody trusts anyone else to listen.
The older I get, the less interested I am in winning debates. Winning is temporary. The satisfaction lasts about as long as the next disagreement. Understanding, however, has lasting value. It strengthens relationships, broadens perspectives, and creates opportunities for cooperation even when agreement remains impossible.
Disagreement is healthy. But what we need are fewer debates disguised as conversations. One builds bridges while the other draws battle lines. In the end, conversations create the possibility of resolution because people are working toward understanding. Debates create division because people are working toward victory. That’s a difference worth remembering.