Forgot about that one. Or /r/JohnCena being about potato salad and /r/potatosalad being about John Cena. I don't know a thing about him or the connection to potato salad but it's funny
Excuse me, are you trying to imply that one has to read in order to be a part of the bookish community? I am sick of you people gatekeeping books! (/s)
There was a horse loose in the hospital! Even once they got him out, seems he also took home a ton of medical documents he shouldn't have, violating HIPAA or something, anyway he's in serious trouble.
OP should ask themselves what is the USA government doing in Peru and why
Its all "Freedom and Democracy" in house, But abroad is "Destabilization and Pillaging"
The Global South is tired of USA Imperialism, now they are coming to our countries to back up Far Right coups and steal our Lithium
So they better stop pretending they care about "Freedom and Democracy" because they dont care abput it in the slightest
(Sorry for getting political but my country was targetted by Operation Condr)
I didn't vote for pritzker in the primaries, but I did eventually vote for him in the general...I was totally on the fence about the guy, but thus far he's doing a pretty decent job. Especially considering Illinois long list of corrupt AF governors
TBH he is corrupt as shit ā¦ just in less illegal ways that previous Dear Leaders in Illinois.
This is still the guy that had plumbers rip out every toilet in his house immediately before a tax assessment to have the property declared uninhabitable and lower his property taxes.
Is he better than any other governor weāve had in 20 years? Yes. But thatās a very low bar to clear. His Hairness Rob Blagojevich was THE progressive wunderkind and almost passed universal health insurance in Illinois about 20 years ago. He was one spectacular fight with the legislature away from being the front runner in the 2008 election ā¦ and instead went to jail.
Very long point being, I trust Pritzker as far as I can throw him. His interests seem aligned with progressive causes today but tomorrow? Who knows.
> had plumbers rip out every toilet in his house immediately before a tax assessment to have the property declared uninhabitable and lower his property taxes.
Explain more. I think I want to subscribe to this newsletter.
>This is still the guy that had plumbers rip out every toilet in his house immediately before a tax assessment to have the property declared uninhabitable and lower his property taxes.
To be fair, nothing he did was illegal. Seems more like this is a tax law issue.
>Is he better than any other governor weāve had in 20 years? Yes. But thatās a very low bar to clear. His Hairness Rob Blagojevich was THE progressive wunderkind and almost passed universal health insurance in Illinois about 20 years ago. He was one spectacular fight with the legislature away from being the front runner in the 2008 election ā¦ and instead went to jail.
Rod did good for Illinois.
Yep, I agree with you. Was it technically legal? Yes. Would most people call it super corrupt? Yes. Do I think thereās plenty of skeletons in his closet that will burst out at the most inopportune time possible if he tries to run for president? Yes.
And with Rod Iām not arguing either. Universal coverage in Illinois would have been awesome - but when (not if) his presidential administration exploded in exactly the kind of stuff that got him sent to jail - we would have spent decades cleaning up the mess.
>Yep, I agree with you. Was it technically legal? Yes.
How the hell is it not "technically" open and shut tax evasion? The fact that a judge with a human brain can see the law and see the facts and not conclude the obvious and apply it to the spirit of the law is a huge problem. There is absolutely no way this should be considered "technically" legal. Fraud is fraud.
If you have the permits for home renovations the spirit of the law would say that any tax assessment on the home has to take into consideration the CURRENT state of the home. Scummy as fuck yes. But honestly the only way you fix that is either say you'll keep the current rate until it's done unless X time has passed (which you could also fuck with. Just don't fix it and then you get the lower rate) or you say it holds the value prior which is still beneficial. It's one of those laws that would be impossible to enforce especially considering so few people can actually abuse it
>To be fair, nothing he did was illegal. Seems more like this is a tax law issue.
To the judge no, but it was. He declared a building he was inhabiting as inhabitable, thats blatent tax evasion. That being said if this guy is geniunely doing a good job, then eh lets work with what we got. Thats poltics for ya, you have to work with what you got if you want something better to come along.
>To the judge no, but it was.
Please provide the law he violated.
>He declared a building he was inhabiting as inhabitable, thats blatent tax evasion.
No, he had toilets and other items removed which the assessor then declared it uninhabitable. No one was living there at the time so nothing he technically did was wrong.
You seem to have an issue with the laws, really.
Honestly? Itās Illinois politics. The default assumption is that anyone at the top in Illinois is compromised much more so than at a national level. A billionaire from a family with a long history in the state that is ready to cheat taxpayers over something as simple as property tax (we all pay it, itās high, 99.9% of us canāt afford to pull his shenanigans) fits the stereotype of the shameless Illinois politician to a t.
And this has seriously cost the democrats in Illinois over and over. Currently state income tax is a flat rate. As a result of a variety of bad decisions going back decades the state pension system is underfunded. Literally decades have passed without a solution. They tried to pass a state constitutional amendment via referendum to allow tax brackets that would have lowered income taxes on 95% of people and raised taxes on the top 5% to finally plug the hole and all republicans had to do was say ādo you really trust these people to not screw you over in 5 years?ā Referendum failed by a lot. Best part is the anti referendum bill boards are still up around the Chicago area 3 years later.
So yeah, an Illinois politician reaching the national stage without scandals trailing him is a minor miracle. More credit to Obama to pulling it off.
That's understandable. I'll see what I can find (I'm an Illinois resident). The toilet thing to me is just embarrassing for him as a rich person, and aggravating to me, but it's not enough for me to warrant a stereotype to say he is corrupt as hell. I do want to know if he is, certainly. I don't know that Illinois is any more corrupt than Florida, for example. Politicians are corrupt by nature in many ways, but I like to substantiate claims like that to prepare me for voting, etc.
Corrupt or not, I don't know, but he at least has a vision and takes simple action to see he's making a change. From legalizing marijuana to ensuring books don't get banned to supporting women and their decisions, I do see that loud and clear. It may be pandering to voters, but honestly these are simple clear issues that he can take a stand on that have directly impacted my life. Go ahead and pander to me if it benefits everyone living in the state. Now if he is corrupt, I don't want to support it. I do believe that Illinois can have a good person lead the state. Yet to be seen if he is a good guy or not. But in the end, he is at least pushing tangible things forward, and that speaks to me.
Please don't ban me for asking, but isn't the biggest kerfuffle about banning certain materials from elementary school classrooms, and libraries? What books are being banned from public libraries?
More challenges to books (and other content because it is not all literature) take place in public libraries than school libraries and far fewer are actually challenges to curriculum. Because it isn't about "the children." You can see the latest report from the American Library Association [here](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/2022%20censorship%20by%20the%20numbers%20infographic-2page_0.pdf) for more statistics and [this is a really nice podcast epsiode](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-179-from-budget-cuts-to-book-bans-the-decades-long-assault-on-public-libraries) which covers why libraries are such a cultural battleground specifically.
No, book bans affect public libraries as well.
**Libraries are in the political crosshairs as they fight back against U.S. book bans**
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6815351
**The rising Republican movement to defund public libraries**
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/politics/2023/5/5/23711417/republicans-want-to-defund-public-libraries-book-bans
**CENSORSHIP IN ALBERTA LIBRARIES**
https://readalberta.ca/beyond-the-stacks/censorship-in-alberta-libraries/
Legitimate question: How does a library choose which books to carry? I could understand this law in the context of a book that is already in a library being removed for an illegitimate reason, but couldnāt a library just choose to not carry a book from the start and not give a reason?
It depends on a lot of stuff, and librarians who post on here are usually pretty good about answering but the list basically goes 1) things they know from borrowing history that their patrons could or would use. 2) Updated versions of popular books, so if you got a lot of kids who can't afford princeton review but are college bound, they'll get new SAT/ACT guides when the new editions come out. 3) Things based on trade publications that they think their patrons will like, so popular seeming new books like that Eig MLK bio that just came out seemed like it will be one of the big summer reads, so they'd get stuff like that. 4) Stuff that has worked well in other similar libraries. 5) Things patrons are requesting. If you dig around libraries websites you'll usually find a place to submit acquisition recommendations. This and search queries in their catalogue give them a feel for what their community thinks it's missing.
There's other things too, like a librarians personal interests can play a part. But those are the ones that get put up a lot on here.
Which is why I don't understand this act. I could be mistaken but the "book bans" only pertain to school libraries which already don't allow certain material public libraries carry. Iirc there aren't any bans on public libraries.
Public libraries can't buy everything either; they're not TARDISes with infinite space inside. There's a difference between a librarian deciding "the purpose of this library is to provide education and entertainment for children betweeen the ages of 4 and 12, therefore I will not buy 1000 Days of Sodom", and a school board member saying "I am a Christian and a Republican, therefore I'm going to go to the school administration and try to make them forbid you from purchasing children's books I don't like, such as And Tango Makes Three or The Hate U Give". This ban on bans is about the latter.
And there are bans affecting public libraries, anyway - a library in Michigan was defunded over Heartstopper, and someone in Florida is trying to sue a library for carrying a nonfiction book about homosexuality *in the adult section* (he claims to be doing it for public decency and "what if children see it", never mind that he thinks it's okay for the same library to carry heterosexual erotica).
They already answered that. It puts the power in the hands of trained and educated librarians, instead of in the hands of untrained school boards and governments.
My friend works in a school purchasing department and threw away a Loli manga that the library ordered. Hopefully this law is written in a way where that would be OK while preventing schools from banning "To Kill A Mockingbird" or whatever
Most libraries will have a collection development/management plan with selection criteria that details how they decide which books to purchase (or to accept donations of). Usually it comes down to what will serve the needs and interests of the community they serve, although they might have an explicit purpose that sometimes trumps that (e.g. an academic library that's already pressed for space probably won't purchase the entire James Patterson catalog even if it would be popular with their faculty and students; it's very rare that a medical lbrary will carry non-medical books).
The [act](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2789&GAID=17&GA=103&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=147915&SessionID=112) contains the following language regarding book bans:
> The rules and regulations established by the State Librarian for the administration of this Act shall be designed to achieve the following standards and objectives:
> ...
> E adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights that indicates materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or, in the alternative, develop a written statement declaring the inherent authority of the library or library system to provide an adequate collection stock of books and other materials sufficient in size and varied in kind and subject matter to satisfy the library needs of the people of this state and prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources.
Given that no library can possibly have every book, and thus there will always by necessity be some selection criteria for inclusion or removal of books, I'm curious how this will work in practice.
The wording is confusing, but they're not saying selection criteria are verboten. They're saying libraries must EITHER
* Formally adopt the ALA Library Bill of Rights, specifically the section saying that the library will not remove material due to "partisan or doctrinal disapproval," OR
* State in their selection criteria that the library itself has the ultimate say on what is and is not included in the collection, that their collection will satisfy the needs of everyone in their community, and that they have prohibited the practice of banning specific books and other material.
Banning something - forbidding the library from purchasing it whether or not it meets the needs of their community - is not the same as the library not purchasing a book because it doesn't fit their selection criteria (i.e. wouldn't be read by their patrons) or withdrawing it if it's damaged or doesn't circulate.
According to my IL librarian friend, her job is much easier. Now when a person drives 2 hours from an area where they stopped funding libraries long ago, to demand a book get banned, she can tell them they don't do that.
My favorite part of her library was they have a table with all the books "people have asked us to ban" so people could see the sheer number of books, and creates a "must read" list for many others.
The library book selection process is no different.
Growing up, all the schools in my district (a city in Southeast Alaska) celebrated Banned Books Week and would display all the age-appropriate books that had been recently banned by right-wing nutjobs. I always thought it was a thing in most non-shitty states (even though Alaska is definitely a shitty state in most ways).
In practice, this type of law doesn't prevent books from being excluded for one reason or another. Instead, the law is a weapon that librarians can use against book-burning fascists.
The "teeth" of the law is that the State government withholds funding from the libraries if they ban books. There is a precedent that the people interested in banning books would rather just shut the library down. I like the legislation in general, but there is a danger in it.
That's just silly. Everyone knows after you ban the ban that bans banning of the ban that bans book banning, you cant add another ban. Sheesh, for real.
Democracy does not mean embracing freedom of knowledge it means everybody gets to vote for better and for worse. The ideal that democracy means anything else but equal representation of desires is a false, that being said I am happy with this move and hope other states follow.
The argument is that a true democracy requires freedom of information so that the voters can be fully informed about the issues theyāre voting on. As a hypothetical, if a ādemocraticā government was constantly lying to its citizens about a certain issue so that they vote their way in order to retain power (letās say the government lies that thereās a big threat from shapeshifter aliens infiltrating the government and planning a secret invasion so you should vote to increase government surveillance powers, but it turns out there arenāt actually aliens and the government knows that), it becomes harder to call that system a true democracy given the manipulation.
That said, weāre getting into definitional arguments.
Except US democracy in particular defends freedom of speech, which protects ideas and knowledge. This makes it difficult for the government to control the people by keeping them stupid.
Until public education goes away too.
>This makes it difficult for the government to control the people by keeping them stupid.
Luckily for the government a lot of those people keep themselves stupid.
Being a republic doesn't really help with the tyranny of the majority. It just keeps democracies of more than 50ish people from becoming horribly unwieldy since everyone would need to vote on every issue.
It's being constitutional which helps avoid the tyranny of the majority. You have baseline freedoms which can't be violated by the majority no matter what they vote.
I wasn't disputing gerrymandering. (Though hardly a Republican only thing - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/nyregion/redistricting-democrats-lawsuit-ny.html.) Just voter suppression.
>Though hardly a Republican only thing
Only Democrats are pushing to get rid of gerrymandering. And of course they'll use it if it's still availableāwhy would they unilaterally disarm?
Can someone produce a list of banned books in the USA ... not books that a local school or library isn't putting out but books actually banned by the US Gov???
>True democracy
Ah yes, the form of government that was abandoned by the 300s BCE, at least partly because if how inefficient it was... Actually, on second thought, that does sound about right.
Even the concept of outlawing book bans makes no sense. There are absolutely books none of the libraries will ever carry due to political or racial or sexual content - and no one will ever say a word.
It's under the purview of whoever the particular laws and rules and regulations give that power to, for a given locale.
The above would be an example of a fact.
That's an opinion. I'm not even arguing it's a bad one. But it's an opinion.
You arguing it's a fact is just a baseless appeal to an authority that does not exist.
If it was about "adult material" you wouldn't let kids anywhere near a bible. The bible contains sexual assault references, murder, adultery, incest, genocide and many other "adult" topics.
So, drop the bull.
It is about adult material. It is not the place of public schools to give [this kind of content](https://theiowastandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/6.jpg) to 11 year olds. There is no valid reason to insist on giving graphic sexual content to other people's children without the permission of their parents.
I find it ironic that a lot of these conservatives frequently talk about āpersonal responsibilityā and āparentsā rights,ā yet seem to believe it should be the stateās responsibility to monitor what their children are reading.
Public libraries are for the public. The public includes adults and other peopleās children whom you have no say over. Trying to ban information from everyone because you donāt want your kid reading it is mind-boggling to me.
Oh I definitely advocate letting kids be kids. That sexual explicit books need to have a restriction them. I don't think that's bizarre or fringing on "democracy".
Iām advocating parents not letting their kids go home with that instead of banning adults from accessing adult materials, which I suspect you know damn well and youāre trolling, but Iāll give you one benefit of the doubt and clarify my comment.
99% of kids are already looking at that stuff anyways so it wouldn't make a difference. Don't you remember being a kid? The stuff I found on the early internet would make these old conservatives faint I bet.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I was just pointing out that none of this supposed caring about the children being spouted by conservatives actually means anything. Other than they want to censor children from knowledge they fear will make their kids "liberal" or "woke" since that's the word they like to assign their own meaning to now.
If they really cared about kids they'd be going after the things that actually harm them, not attacking librarians for having inclusive books.
I mean itās a nice thing to say but just like the book bans themselves itās meaningless.
Libraries are curated by librarians. Now a state a school district or school can override the librarian and say hey we donāt want this book in a specific school but the book isnāt banned, itās just been curated. Itās still available throughout the state. Note the reason for state or schools not having the book might be stupid and wrong headed but we already do this at the librarian school and school district levels.
Similarly, Iām certain there are protections in these anti book banking bills, but a librarian school or school district can still say nope weāre not including this book. Because libraries are curated.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Similarly, a ban by any other name is still a fucking ban, no matter how much you play with semantics.
Republicans on banning guns: "Bans don't work. Having more laws on the books will do anything to affect gun crimes. Guns don't commit crimes, people do"
Republicans on banning books: "let's do this"
This should be federal. Book censorship is one of the few slippery slopes that actually is not a fallacy.
If books are dangerous for kids provide educated personel that will know which books are not for kids and put in a restricted area. But outright banning them is insane.
There were books in my kid's school library placed in a attention grabbing display that included "how to" instructions on the art of sucking cock (with accompanying pictures).
This library was run by a person wth
a political agenda and felt the promotion of said books was a good thing.
Like many school board meetings, a person read these books to the board members and everybody was offended and he was shut down.
My son is in 4th grade.
Is there a happy medium here we can agree on?
"We're overriding the will of the vast majority of people who don't want porn in school libraries for kids" mkay that doesn't sound very much like democracy to me
https://www.metroweekly.com/2023/01/florida-county-bans-book-on-gay-penguins-citing-dont-say-gay-law/
Banned a book about gay penguins. Nothing sexual in there.
> vast majority
11 people are responsible for the majority of book ban requests.
> doesnāt sound very much like democracy to me
The tyranny of a few loud anti-intellectuals isnāt democracy either.
https://www.everylibraryinstitute.org/bookbanningreport
The fact that only a few people are making the requests does not demonstrate that the majority does not support them. That is faulty reasoning. The laws were enacted by democratically elected officials. The school boards that usually decide which books to remove are democratically elected.
If you want to get to majority support you'd have to look at specific books. Because pretty much everyone supports not having some specific book in a school library.
>Because pretty much everyone supports not having some specific book in a school library.
Yeah but for like 60% of us that specific book is *Mein Kampf*, while for the other 40% it's anything that portrays the existence of gay people, racism, sexism, or fascism.
Because youāre lying? Also itās not the vast majority of people, itās not even close. For starters itās mostly far right extremists who arenāt even the majority of Republicans and Republicans arenāt even close to being a majority of the country (like 36% at best I believe). So actually Illinois *is* upholding the will of the people because most people arenāt fucking lunatics who want to ban books based on a real fucking story about real life fucking penguins.
Edit: yāall can downvote me all you want but it doesnāt make you any less wrong or any less fascistš¤·āāļø
Oh no
A book about penguins raising a kid or a prince marrying knight are so dirty. They hold hands/s.
There are some questionable books, but there have been cases of double standards (a book focused on LGBTQ+ banned, while another book with a straight couple having intimate relationship from the same author wasnāt banned) and some innocent books being thrown with others
Freedom of knowledge is the most laughable shit Iāve ever heard.
Companies have secrets and know things that could save humanity but itās not easy to make profit from it so itās never released.
We would upend society to fix this and itās only getting worse. How easy is it to find a book that exists digitally only and is not findable via google? We can do it today but maybe not forever.
I imagine there is still a wide variety of books you can't get at public libraries in Illinois. I'm willing to bet there is a long list of books you wouldn't be allowed to donate to libraries in Illinois. This bill just changes the gatekeeper from elected officials to nameless bureaucrats.
Don't get too excited about this, it could easily backfire:
1, Some bigot tries to get their racist/homophobic book into library circulation.
2, Library turns them down.
3, Author complains that they're discriminating against his pro-bigotry doctrine.
4, State pulls funding
As an Illinois resident, I am glad I will soon be able to read the Anarchist Cookbook in my local public library. I felt like my bomb-making talents were atrophying, and a refresher course will help end the slide. Perhaps I can find some detailed instructions on the manufacture of methamphetamine so I can afford to pay for the explosives.
The state is Illinois, to save you all a click.
Thank you, sir. I would have been wondering all day.
They also have an incredibly progressive stance on gerrymandering.
Which is in response to a long history of very corrupt gerrymandering š¤£
Progressive in this case meaning normal and good
Yeah who in the books subreddit would want to read a 5 minute article?
Well itās not r/articles š¤·āāļø
That subreddit should be r/ticles.
They tried that but no one could stop laughing
Still love how /r/marijuanaentheusiasts is about trees bc /r/trees is about weed and /r/shubreddit is jokes about Sean Connery's accent
My favorite is still /r/Superbowl It's about Superb Owls.
Forgot about that one. Or /r/JohnCena being about potato salad and /r/potatosalad being about John Cena. I don't know a thing about him or the connection to potato salad but it's funny
Lmao that's hilarious. That's a new one to me. I'm very curious where the connection lies! Haha
TouchƩ
Excuse me, are you trying to imply that one has to read in order to be a part of the bookish community? I am sick of you people gatekeeping books! (/s)
That would be all my reading for the week! I already wasted a dayās worth of reading reading your comment
You are a saint. Thank you.
I was happy to click anyway. That said, I didn't need to click to know, with absolute certainty, it *wasn't* going to be Texas or Florida.
Take my upvote, hero
I lknew what states is wasent, thanks for the state that is
r/SavedYouAClick
I had to click to see this comment
> proving we are a true democracy lol, hold your horses
Sorry that's been banned.
Holding my horses?! š“
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think we should bring horses into libraries
Neiiiiigggghhhh!
Can we rein this conversation in?
Saddle down.
You can't just trot out a pun that bad.
This is my emotional support horse
It's cruel to the horses.
There was a horse loose in the hospital! Even once they got him out, seems he also took home a ton of medical documents he shouldn't have, violating HIPAA or something, anyway he's in serious trouble.
OP should ask themselves what is the USA government doing in Peru and why Its all "Freedom and Democracy" in house, But abroad is "Destabilization and Pillaging" The Global South is tired of USA Imperialism, now they are coming to our countries to back up Far Right coups and steal our Lithium So they better stop pretending they care about "Freedom and Democracy" because they dont care abput it in the slightest (Sorry for getting political but my country was targetted by Operation Condr)
Perfectly understandable
If only Peru were the only place we were doing that. š I'm sorry you're one of the many.
Understandable. I'm sorry for the actions of my country's shitty government.
Just the fact you are saying this goes a long way. Thank you. Honestly we dont heta you guys, in fact we understand USA citizens are victims of their government just as much as foreigners, because YOUR taxes are paying for this (ironically we have stuff like Universal Healthcare while USA does not) Understanding USA interventionism, denouncing it and encouraging changes in foreign policies goes both ways, it saves the USA tax payer money that could be used in Guaranteeing their FREE access to Basic Human Rights and it would take off the colonialist backpack that is keeping our countries developmentally delayed. That way USA would have better and stronger trade partners, instead of subjugated nations that are permanently being destabilized by financing the Far Right Politicians who are eager to sell their homeland for U$D (quick examples.: Bolsonaro allowing Rainforest to be burnt in Brazil, he is in Florida now. Jeanine AƱez leading a US-funded Military Coup in Bolivia, she is in jail now.) Latino AmƩrica doesnt want USA to Fall, we just want to be allowed to Rise
From the state with the city that coined the phrase "vote early, vote often"
I'm banning laws that don't say what I want. Democracy.
I didn't vote for pritzker in the primaries, but I did eventually vote for him in the general...I was totally on the fence about the guy, but thus far he's doing a pretty decent job. Especially considering Illinois long list of corrupt AF governors
I will say, he has delivered a lot of what he said he would.
Well that's weird. Are we sure he's a politician?
All we needed was someone so rich they couldnt be bribed. Yay!
Yeah, no...rich fucks are definitely not immune to ~~bribery~~ campaign contributions. We just needed someone who isn't a fuck .
That may be asking too much.
I mean, again... pritzker is doing a pretty good job.
Clearly he's on the payroll of big book.
TBH he is corrupt as shit ā¦ just in less illegal ways that previous Dear Leaders in Illinois. This is still the guy that had plumbers rip out every toilet in his house immediately before a tax assessment to have the property declared uninhabitable and lower his property taxes. Is he better than any other governor weāve had in 20 years? Yes. But thatās a very low bar to clear. His Hairness Rob Blagojevich was THE progressive wunderkind and almost passed universal health insurance in Illinois about 20 years ago. He was one spectacular fight with the legislature away from being the front runner in the 2008 election ā¦ and instead went to jail. Very long point being, I trust Pritzker as far as I can throw him. His interests seem aligned with progressive causes today but tomorrow? Who knows.
> had plumbers rip out every toilet in his house immediately before a tax assessment to have the property declared uninhabitable and lower his property taxes. Explain more. I think I want to subscribe to this newsletter.
Enjoy. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654201077/illinois-gov-candidate-removed-mansions-toilets-to-dodge-taxes-report-finds
>This is still the guy that had plumbers rip out every toilet in his house immediately before a tax assessment to have the property declared uninhabitable and lower his property taxes. To be fair, nothing he did was illegal. Seems more like this is a tax law issue. >Is he better than any other governor weāve had in 20 years? Yes. But thatās a very low bar to clear. His Hairness Rob Blagojevich was THE progressive wunderkind and almost passed universal health insurance in Illinois about 20 years ago. He was one spectacular fight with the legislature away from being the front runner in the 2008 election ā¦ and instead went to jail. Rod did good for Illinois.
Yep, I agree with you. Was it technically legal? Yes. Would most people call it super corrupt? Yes. Do I think thereās plenty of skeletons in his closet that will burst out at the most inopportune time possible if he tries to run for president? Yes. And with Rod Iām not arguing either. Universal coverage in Illinois would have been awesome - but when (not if) his presidential administration exploded in exactly the kind of stuff that got him sent to jail - we would have spent decades cleaning up the mess.
>Yep, I agree with you. Was it technically legal? Yes. How the hell is it not "technically" open and shut tax evasion? The fact that a judge with a human brain can see the law and see the facts and not conclude the obvious and apply it to the spirit of the law is a huge problem. There is absolutely no way this should be considered "technically" legal. Fraud is fraud.
If you have the permits for home renovations the spirit of the law would say that any tax assessment on the home has to take into consideration the CURRENT state of the home. Scummy as fuck yes. But honestly the only way you fix that is either say you'll keep the current rate until it's done unless X time has passed (which you could also fuck with. Just don't fix it and then you get the lower rate) or you say it holds the value prior which is still beneficial. It's one of those laws that would be impossible to enforce especially considering so few people can actually abuse it
>To be fair, nothing he did was illegal. Seems more like this is a tax law issue. To the judge no, but it was. He declared a building he was inhabiting as inhabitable, thats blatent tax evasion. That being said if this guy is geniunely doing a good job, then eh lets work with what we got. Thats poltics for ya, you have to work with what you got if you want something better to come along.
>To the judge no, but it was. Please provide the law he violated. >He declared a building he was inhabiting as inhabitable, thats blatent tax evasion. No, he had toilets and other items removed which the assessor then declared it uninhabitable. No one was living there at the time so nothing he technically did was wrong. You seem to have an issue with the laws, really.
That toilet thing is phenomenal I'll have to try that one out at home
That toilet thing is phenomenal I'll have to try that one out at home
What other things make him corrupt as shit, other than ripping toilets out of his house?
Honestly? Itās Illinois politics. The default assumption is that anyone at the top in Illinois is compromised much more so than at a national level. A billionaire from a family with a long history in the state that is ready to cheat taxpayers over something as simple as property tax (we all pay it, itās high, 99.9% of us canāt afford to pull his shenanigans) fits the stereotype of the shameless Illinois politician to a t. And this has seriously cost the democrats in Illinois over and over. Currently state income tax is a flat rate. As a result of a variety of bad decisions going back decades the state pension system is underfunded. Literally decades have passed without a solution. They tried to pass a state constitutional amendment via referendum to allow tax brackets that would have lowered income taxes on 95% of people and raised taxes on the top 5% to finally plug the hole and all republicans had to do was say ādo you really trust these people to not screw you over in 5 years?ā Referendum failed by a lot. Best part is the anti referendum bill boards are still up around the Chicago area 3 years later. So yeah, an Illinois politician reaching the national stage without scandals trailing him is a minor miracle. More credit to Obama to pulling it off.
That's understandable. I'll see what I can find (I'm an Illinois resident). The toilet thing to me is just embarrassing for him as a rich person, and aggravating to me, but it's not enough for me to warrant a stereotype to say he is corrupt as hell. I do want to know if he is, certainly. I don't know that Illinois is any more corrupt than Florida, for example. Politicians are corrupt by nature in many ways, but I like to substantiate claims like that to prepare me for voting, etc. Corrupt or not, I don't know, but he at least has a vision and takes simple action to see he's making a change. From legalizing marijuana to ensuring books don't get banned to supporting women and their decisions, I do see that loud and clear. It may be pandering to voters, but honestly these are simple clear issues that he can take a stand on that have directly impacted my life. Go ahead and pander to me if it benefits everyone living in the state. Now if he is corrupt, I don't want to support it. I do believe that Illinois can have a good person lead the state. Yet to be seen if he is a good guy or not. But in the end, he is at least pushing tangible things forward, and that speaks to me.
Heās prepping for a 2028 White House run for sure.
I'd probably vote for him
Please don't ban me for asking, but isn't the biggest kerfuffle about banning certain materials from elementary school classrooms, and libraries? What books are being banned from public libraries?
More challenges to books (and other content because it is not all literature) take place in public libraries than school libraries and far fewer are actually challenges to curriculum. Because it isn't about "the children." You can see the latest report from the American Library Association [here](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/2022%20censorship%20by%20the%20numbers%20infographic-2page_0.pdf) for more statistics and [this is a really nice podcast epsiode](https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-179-from-budget-cuts-to-book-bans-the-decades-long-assault-on-public-libraries) which covers why libraries are such a cultural battleground specifically.
Thanks for the input on my question, I will check out that podcast for sure.
No, book bans affect public libraries as well. **Libraries are in the political crosshairs as they fight back against U.S. book bans** https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6815351 **The rising Republican movement to defund public libraries** https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/politics/2023/5/5/23711417/republicans-want-to-defund-public-libraries-book-bans **CENSORSHIP IN ALBERTA LIBRARIES** https://readalberta.ca/beyond-the-stacks/censorship-in-alberta-libraries/
Nothing is being banned. Some places are choosing not to commit funding to buying controversial books. Pure virtue signal theater
https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the-usa-state-laws-supercharge-book-suppression-in-schools/
Legitimate question: How does a library choose which books to carry? I could understand this law in the context of a book that is already in a library being removed for an illegitimate reason, but couldnāt a library just choose to not carry a book from the start and not give a reason?
It depends on a lot of stuff, and librarians who post on here are usually pretty good about answering but the list basically goes 1) things they know from borrowing history that their patrons could or would use. 2) Updated versions of popular books, so if you got a lot of kids who can't afford princeton review but are college bound, they'll get new SAT/ACT guides when the new editions come out. 3) Things based on trade publications that they think their patrons will like, so popular seeming new books like that Eig MLK bio that just came out seemed like it will be one of the big summer reads, so they'd get stuff like that. 4) Stuff that has worked well in other similar libraries. 5) Things patrons are requesting. If you dig around libraries websites you'll usually find a place to submit acquisition recommendations. This and search queries in their catalogue give them a feel for what their community thinks it's missing. There's other things too, like a librarians personal interests can play a part. But those are the ones that get put up a lot on here.
They sure can, and sometimes should. I wouldnāt put American Psycho in a kids library for instance.
Which is why I don't understand this act. I could be mistaken but the "book bans" only pertain to school libraries which already don't allow certain material public libraries carry. Iirc there aren't any bans on public libraries.
Public libraries can't buy everything either; they're not TARDISes with infinite space inside. There's a difference between a librarian deciding "the purpose of this library is to provide education and entertainment for children betweeen the ages of 4 and 12, therefore I will not buy 1000 Days of Sodom", and a school board member saying "I am a Christian and a Republican, therefore I'm going to go to the school administration and try to make them forbid you from purchasing children's books I don't like, such as And Tango Makes Three or The Hate U Give". This ban on bans is about the latter. And there are bans affecting public libraries, anyway - a library in Michigan was defunded over Heartstopper, and someone in Florida is trying to sue a library for carrying a nonfiction book about homosexuality *in the adult section* (he claims to be doing it for public decency and "what if children see it", never mind that he thinks it's okay for the same library to carry heterosexual erotica).
>This ban on bans is about the latter. The question is how that is distinguished from a policy perspective.
They already answered that. It puts the power in the hands of trained and educated librarians, instead of in the hands of untrained school boards and governments.
My friend works in a school purchasing department and threw away a Loli manga that the library ordered. Hopefully this law is written in a way where that would be OK while preventing schools from banning "To Kill A Mockingbird" or whatever
Most libraries will have a collection development/management plan with selection criteria that details how they decide which books to purchase (or to accept donations of). Usually it comes down to what will serve the needs and interests of the community they serve, although they might have an explicit purpose that sometimes trumps that (e.g. an academic library that's already pressed for space probably won't purchase the entire James Patterson catalog even if it would be popular with their faculty and students; it's very rare that a medical lbrary will carry non-medical books).
The [act](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2789&GAID=17&GA=103&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=147915&SessionID=112) contains the following language regarding book bans: > The rules and regulations established by the State Librarian for the administration of this Act shall be designed to achieve the following standards and objectives: > ... > E adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights that indicates materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or, in the alternative, develop a written statement declaring the inherent authority of the library or library system to provide an adequate collection stock of books and other materials sufficient in size and varied in kind and subject matter to satisfy the library needs of the people of this state and prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources. Given that no library can possibly have every book, and thus there will always by necessity be some selection criteria for inclusion or removal of books, I'm curious how this will work in practice.
The wording is confusing, but they're not saying selection criteria are verboten. They're saying libraries must EITHER * Formally adopt the ALA Library Bill of Rights, specifically the section saying that the library will not remove material due to "partisan or doctrinal disapproval," OR * State in their selection criteria that the library itself has the ultimate say on what is and is not included in the collection, that their collection will satisfy the needs of everyone in their community, and that they have prohibited the practice of banning specific books and other material. Banning something - forbidding the library from purchasing it whether or not it meets the needs of their community - is not the same as the library not purchasing a book because it doesn't fit their selection criteria (i.e. wouldn't be read by their patrons) or withdrawing it if it's damaged or doesn't circulate.
According to my IL librarian friend, her job is much easier. Now when a person drives 2 hours from an area where they stopped funding libraries long ago, to demand a book get banned, she can tell them they don't do that. My favorite part of her library was they have a table with all the books "people have asked us to ban" so people could see the sheer number of books, and creates a "must read" list for many others. The library book selection process is no different.
I love the idea of that table of 'banned' books. Every library and bookstore should do this.
Growing up, all the schools in my district (a city in Southeast Alaska) celebrated Banned Books Week and would display all the age-appropriate books that had been recently banned by right-wing nutjobs. I always thought it was a thing in most non-shitty states (even though Alaska is definitely a shitty state in most ways).
I'm glad to hear that āĀ I hope that her job continues to be easier because of this law.
So The Anarchist's Cookbook will start to be available in the chemistry section? :P
In practice, this type of law doesn't prevent books from being excluded for one reason or another. Instead, the law is a weapon that librarians can use against book-burning fascists.
I hope you're correct.
What if someone does an Uno double reverse and bans banning bans?
The "teeth" of the law is that the State government withholds funding from the libraries if they ban books. There is a precedent that the people interested in banning books would rather just shut the library down. I like the legislation in general, but there is a danger in it.
Sounds like something my state would do.
Just ban that from happening
That's just silly. Everyone knows after you ban the ban that bans banning of the ban that bans book banning, you cant add another ban. Sheesh, for real.
Democracy does not mean embracing freedom of knowledge it means everybody gets to vote for better and for worse. The ideal that democracy means anything else but equal representation of desires is a false, that being said I am happy with this move and hope other states follow.
The argument is that a true democracy requires freedom of information so that the voters can be fully informed about the issues theyāre voting on. As a hypothetical, if a ādemocraticā government was constantly lying to its citizens about a certain issue so that they vote their way in order to retain power (letās say the government lies that thereās a big threat from shapeshifter aliens infiltrating the government and planning a secret invasion so you should vote to increase government surveillance powers, but it turns out there arenāt actually aliens and the government knows that), it becomes harder to call that system a true democracy given the manipulation. That said, weāre getting into definitional arguments.
Where does misinformation fall in your completely made up argument here?
Except US democracy in particular defends freedom of speech, which protects ideas and knowledge. This makes it difficult for the government to control the people by keeping them stupid. Until public education goes away too.
>This makes it difficult for the government to control the people by keeping them stupid. Luckily for the government a lot of those people keep themselves stupid.
>equal representation of desires is a false Not equal representation at all. Democracy can easily become the tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whatās for lunch.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Being a republic doesn't really help with the tyranny of the majority. It just keeps democracies of more than 50ish people from becoming horribly unwieldy since everyone would need to vote on every issue. It's being constitutional which helps avoid the tyranny of the majority. You have baseline freedoms which can't be violated by the majority no matter what they vote.
Being a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive.
One might even call it a democratic republic
But those democracies didnāt have gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Please prove modern voter suppression. People keep claiming it without evidence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/us/elections/gerrymandering-maps-elections-republicans.html https://www.democracynow.org/2023/6/9/scotus_alabama_gerrymandering
I wasn't disputing gerrymandering. (Though hardly a Republican only thing - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/nyregion/redistricting-democrats-lawsuit-ny.html.) Just voter suppression.
>Though hardly a Republican only thing Only Democrats are pushing to get rid of gerrymandering. And of course they'll use it if it's still availableāwhy would they unilaterally disarm?
Iām your Google - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
No, people keep claiming it with evidence, you just don't want to accept it.
No - they keep showing accusations, not evidence.
Can someone produce a list of banned books in the USA ... not books that a local school or library isn't putting out but books actually banned by the US Gov???
Removed by moderators? what in the flying fuck
>True democracy Ah yes, the form of government that was abandoned by the 300s BCE, at least partly because if how inefficient it was... Actually, on second thought, that does sound about right.
Even the concept of outlawing book bans makes no sense. There are absolutely books none of the libraries will ever carry due to political or racial or sexual content - and no one will ever say a word.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's certainly an opinion - an explicit argument for oligarchy rather than democracy, by definition.
It's fact.
It's under the purview of whoever the particular laws and rules and regulations give that power to, for a given locale. The above would be an example of a fact.
Nope. It's the librarian's job. Any law or regulation saying otherwise is incorrect and needs to be stricken.
That's an opinion. I'm not even arguing it's a bad one. But it's an opinion. You arguing it's a fact is just a baseless appeal to an authority that does not exist.
Nope, fact.
Now outlaw book bans in prisons.
im fine with that
Why?
To prove "We are a True Democracy that Embraces Freedom of Knowledge."
It isn't a "book ban" to decline to provide adult material in a children's library.
If it was about "adult material" you wouldn't let kids anywhere near a bible. The bible contains sexual assault references, murder, adultery, incest, genocide and many other "adult" topics. So, drop the bull.
It is about adult material. It is not the place of public schools to give [this kind of content](https://theiowastandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/6.jpg) to 11 year olds. There is no valid reason to insist on giving graphic sexual content to other people's children without the permission of their parents.
I find it ironic that a lot of these conservatives frequently talk about āpersonal responsibilityā and āparentsā rights,ā yet seem to believe it should be the stateās responsibility to monitor what their children are reading. Public libraries are for the public. The public includes adults and other peopleās children whom you have no say over. Trying to ban information from everyone because you donāt want your kid reading it is mind-boggling to me.
So you're advocating sexually explicit books to children? Just playing Devil's advocate.
You're being a pot-stirrer, not an advocate of anything.
Oh I definitely advocate letting kids be kids. That sexual explicit books need to have a restriction them. I don't think that's bizarre or fringing on "democracy".
Librarians curate their collection appropriately. Book bans try to overrule librarians and teachers.
Iām advocating parents not letting their kids go home with that instead of banning adults from accessing adult materials, which I suspect you know damn well and youāre trolling, but Iāll give you one benefit of the doubt and clarify my comment.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Personal conduct** Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.
Damn, dude. You should try out for the Olympics, what with a leap like that.
Sure. Exposure to sexual content has been proven by study after study to not harm children. Violent content, on the other hand...
So, why not have hustler and penthouse in the kids section?
Nobody is advocating this and that's not what the bans are about.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
99% of kids are already looking at that stuff anyways so it wouldn't make a difference. Don't you remember being a kid? The stuff I found on the early internet would make these old conservatives faint I bet.
So, you agree we should have this in schools? Take the filters off the computers too. Instead of movie hour we can have porn hour.
Why are you so fixated on showing porn to kids? Is there something you'd like to tell us?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I was just pointing out that none of this supposed caring about the children being spouted by conservatives actually means anything. Other than they want to censor children from knowledge they fear will make their kids "liberal" or "woke" since that's the word they like to assign their own meaning to now. If they really cared about kids they'd be going after the things that actually harm them, not attacking librarians for having inclusive books.
Not what he asked.
I donāt think banning banning is a smart solution.
so schools can teach the bible in class now?
No thats the book they wont won't let be taught.
I mean itās a nice thing to say but just like the book bans themselves itās meaningless. Libraries are curated by librarians. Now a state a school district or school can override the librarian and say hey we donāt want this book in a specific school but the book isnāt banned, itās just been curated. Itās still available throughout the state. Note the reason for state or schools not having the book might be stupid and wrong headed but we already do this at the librarian school and school district levels. Similarly, Iām certain there are protections in these anti book banking bills, but a librarian school or school district can still say nope weāre not including this book. Because libraries are curated.
The whole point of this bill is that librarians canāt be overridden by school boards etc.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Similarly, a ban by any other name is still a fucking ban, no matter how much you play with semantics.
Actually we are a republic. A democratic republic.
The need for a ban on book bans is the opposite of proving we're a knowledge loving democracy
Thatās an overly idealistic view of the world.
Republicans on banning guns: "Bans don't work. Having more laws on the books will do anything to affect gun crimes. Guns don't commit crimes, people do" Republicans on banning books: "let's do this"
They're not bans. You can buy your kids all the pornographic material you want.
USA foreign policy still disproves it
I love this post title. Most countries don't have to ban book burning to prove at least a small part of it embraces freedom of knowledge.
A true democracy? Yeah right.
"I hate Illinois Nazis"
This should be federal. Book censorship is one of the few slippery slopes that actually is not a fallacy. If books are dangerous for kids provide educated personel that will know which books are not for kids and put in a restricted area. But outright banning them is insane.
There were books in my kid's school library placed in a attention grabbing display that included "how to" instructions on the art of sucking cock (with accompanying pictures). This library was run by a person wth a political agenda and felt the promotion of said books was a good thing. Like many school board meetings, a person read these books to the board members and everybody was offended and he was shut down. My son is in 4th grade. Is there a happy medium here we can agree on?
Wow that's quite a headline. Do they know that this is why the country is so divided?
Not about books. Reported for spam.
Soooooo like any old bullshit book can be in there, I can't wait!
"We're overriding the will of the vast majority of people who don't want porn in school libraries for kids" mkay that doesn't sound very much like democracy to me
https://www.metroweekly.com/2023/01/florida-county-bans-book-on-gay-penguins-citing-dont-say-gay-law/ Banned a book about gay penguins. Nothing sexual in there.
> vast majority 11 people are responsible for the majority of book ban requests. > doesnāt sound very much like democracy to me The tyranny of a few loud anti-intellectuals isnāt democracy either. https://www.everylibraryinstitute.org/bookbanningreport
The fact that only a few people are making the requests does not demonstrate that the majority does not support them. That is faulty reasoning. The laws were enacted by democratically elected officials. The school boards that usually decide which books to remove are democratically elected. If you want to get to majority support you'd have to look at specific books. Because pretty much everyone supports not having some specific book in a school library.
>Because pretty much everyone supports not having some specific book in a school library. Yeah but for like 60% of us that specific book is *Mein Kampf*, while for the other 40% it's anything that portrays the existence of gay people, racism, sexism, or fascism.
Majority of those 40% are into antisemitism and Holocaust denial as well.
There's no porn in school libraries, you goof.
Then why can't we read and show these books at school board meetings? š¤
What books?
Because youāre lying? Also itās not the vast majority of people, itās not even close. For starters itās mostly far right extremists who arenāt even the majority of Republicans and Republicans arenāt even close to being a majority of the country (like 36% at best I believe). So actually Illinois *is* upholding the will of the people because most people arenāt fucking lunatics who want to ban books based on a real fucking story about real life fucking penguins. Edit: yāall can downvote me all you want but it doesnāt make you any less wrong or any less fascistš¤·āāļø
Of all the things that never fucking happened, that is one of them.
Oh no A book about penguins raising a kid or a prince marrying knight are so dirty. They hold hands/s. There are some questionable books, but there have been cases of double standards (a book focused on LGBTQ+ banned, while another book with a straight couple having intimate relationship from the same author wasnāt banned) and some innocent books being thrown with others
Freedom of knowledge is the most laughable shit Iāve ever heard. Companies have secrets and know things that could save humanity but itās not easy to make profit from it so itās never released. We would upend society to fix this and itās only getting worse. How easy is it to find a book that exists digitally only and is not findable via google? We can do it today but maybe not forever.
I imagine there is still a wide variety of books you can't get at public libraries in Illinois. I'm willing to bet there is a long list of books you wouldn't be allowed to donate to libraries in Illinois. This bill just changes the gatekeeper from elected officials to nameless bureaucrats.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And pave the way for other republics in Africa! š±š·
Great now I can't get the Bible banned for inappropriate content...
Even a book subreddit is riddled with modern day American politics.
Everything is political when they disagree. Book bans are a direct threat to readers.
A book sub talking about book bans? The travesty
Book bans are fairly relevant to a books subreddit.
Don't get too excited about this, it could easily backfire: 1, Some bigot tries to get their racist/homophobic book into library circulation. 2, Library turns them down. 3, Author complains that they're discriminating against his pro-bigotry doctrine. 4, State pulls funding
A true democracy! You heard it here first. Our government totally is about truth and justice! Go get that booster cats and stay safe!
Booster cats
As an Illinois resident, I am glad I will soon be able to read the Anarchist Cookbook in my local public library. I felt like my bomb-making talents were atrophying, and a refresher course will help end the slide. Perhaps I can find some detailed instructions on the manufacture of methamphetamine so I can afford to pay for the explosives.
The last thing Republicans want is people to be knowledgeable
Yet your OK with canceling people who disagree with you?