 Oh, this is a, you know, this is a funny, sad, depressing story, and it comes to us as often funny, sad, depressing stories do. It comes to us from Canada, from a northern neighbor. So Canada is very concerned about equity. It's very concerned about the books in their libraries, as many in the left in the United States are actually many on the right, too, but for different reasons, right? Many people are concerned about what books are in the libraries. And there's a mandate in Canada that books in the libraries be, you know, be concerned with issues of equity, issues of discrimination, issues of, you know, that they're not be misleading or, you know, unpleasant. Here's the, you know, this is from the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting. You know, librarians are to go through each book and consider the widely used musty acronym adopted from the Canadian school libraries. The letters stand for the criteria librarians supposed to consider, and they include. So these are the criteria supposed to consider when deciding what books to have in your library, school library, and which not. Misleading, which means information may be factually incorrect or obsolete. Obsolete is interesting. Unpleasant refers to the physical condition of the book may require replacement. Okay, so the book is falling apart, maybe, or stinks or is dirty or whatever. Superceded. The book's being overtaken by a new addition or more current resource. All right, reasonable. Trivial. Of no discernible literary or scientific merit, poorly written or presented. All right, I'm not sure, you know, what the standards are for deciding that, but okay, irrelevant. Doesn't meet the needs and interests of the library's community. Elsewhere, the book or the material in it may be better obtained from other sources. But all of this, of course, framed around issues of equity, around issues of not of anti-racism, inclusivity, you know, and cultural responsiveness, whatever the hell that means. Right? So, those all have to color everything that is done. Anyway, you know, that's a lot of work. It's a lot of work to go in and pull out, you know, because it's a very difficult process. You have to go every book and decide. So, some libraries in, I guess, Toronto, some libraries in some school districts have decided on an easier method. They basically decided to look. We know that in the past, authors were hyper, like, culturally insensitive. They were likely to discriminate. They were likely to say offensive things. They were likely just to be not sensitive, right? Because they're in the past. You know, this new woke, this new ability to really be sensitized to what is going on in the world is new. It didn't exist in the past. So, why don't we take, I don't know, let's say 2008 and just say, let's take all the books written before 2008 off the bookshelves. All the books are at least published before 2008 off the bookshelves. And there's some pictures in this article in the CBC of the lively shelves that are empty, empty, because they basically taken out all books published prior to 2008. Now, supposedly, they're only taking off books that are damaged, inaccurate or do not have strong curriculum data, sorry, circulation data on not being checked out by students. But the easiest thing is just to remove them all, because then you don't have to actually choose and you don't have to actually select. Pretty amazing, pretty amazing. A lot of books have been abandoned by the library. Some examples were magnificent women in music. You'd think that that would be, that would actually be a book that they would want. Anna Frank, old book, we don't want old books. Remember the hungry, the very hungry caterpillar? I remember that book. I think my kids had that book, the very hungry caterpillar. Anyway, why bother with actually looking and testing every book and reading it and figuring out what's appropriate and what's not, which every librarian has to do because there's only a limited number of books that you can have in any library. And look, some books are not appropriate for school libraries. And there's a big debate going on in the United States right now about some books that are clearly explicit sexual books that are not appropriate for school libraries. But it requires real work. It requires real thoughtfulness. It requires real analysis. It requires, and look, some of this is going to be biased because different librarians are going to make different choices based on what they consider as good literature, bad literature, what they consider as acceptable, what they consider not acceptable, good condition of a book, bad condition of a book. You know, the weaning out is going to happen in different levels by different librarians, and you're going to have biases built into that. And that's just life. But this Canadian system is what I call the stupid method. No evaluation required. If it's 2008 or earlier, just take it out because it's easier. And now, of course, not all school libraries are doing this. I think this is the lazy method. And a lot of this is just coming from this so much confusion about what these new equity based standards and processes mean that I think a lot of librarians just don't know and they're just looking for easy way outs. And the reality is there is no right answer because by definition, these equity based processes and standards are non objective, irrational and complete nonsense. Why 2008? Your guess is as good as mine. I have no idea. No idea.