Banning Books Boosts Book-Learning

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090305151758AA7dWwd
Is it OK to run an illegal library from my locker at school?
Let me explain.

I go to a private school that is rather strict. Recently, the principal and school teacher council released a (very long) list of books we're not allowed to read. I was absolutely appalled, because a large number of the books were classics and others that are my favorites. One of my personal favorites, The Catcher in the Rye, was on the list, so I decided to bring it to school to see if I would really get in trouble. Well... I did but not too much. Then (surprise!) a boy in my English class asked if he could borrow the book, because he heard it was very good AND it was banned! This happened a lot and my locker got to overflowing with the banned books, so I decided to put the unoccupied locker next to me to a good use. I now have 62 books in that locker, about half of what was on the list. I took care only to bring the books with literary quality. Some of these books are:

>The Perks of Being a Wallflower
>His Dark Materials trilogy
>Sabriel
>The Canterbury Tales
>Candide
>The Divine Comedy
>Paradise Lost
>The Godfather
>Mort
>Interview with the Vampire
>The Hunger Games
>The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
>A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
>Animal Farm
>The Witches
>Shade's Children
>The Evolution of Man
> the Holy Qu'ran
... and lots more.

Anyway, I now operate a little mini-library that no one has access to but myself. Practically a real library, because I keep an inventory log and give people due dates and everything. I would be in so much trouble if I got caught, but I think it's the right thing to do because before I started, almost no kid at school but myself took an active interest in reading! Now not only are all the kids reading the banned books, but go out of their way to read anything they can get their hands on. So I'm doing a good thing, right? Oh, and since you're probably wondering "Why can't you just go to a local library and check out the books?" most of the kids are too chicken or their parents won't let them but the books. I think that people should have open minds. Most of the books were banned because they contained information that opposed Catholisism. I limit my 'library' to only the sophmores, juniors and seniors just in case so you can't say I'm exposing young people to materiel they're not mature enough for. But is what I'm doing wrong because parents and teachers don't know about it and might not like it, or is it a good thing because I am starting appreciation of the classics and truly good novels (Not just fad novels like Twilight) in my generation?

• 3 months ago

Additional Details

More books I have:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Slaughterhouse-5
Lord of the Flies
Bridge to Terabithia
Catch-22
East of Eden
The Brothers Grimm Unabridged Fairytales.
...the list goes on.

3 months ago

Twilight is banned also, but I don't want that polluting my library.

3 months ago

As for getting the press involved, reporters are not allowed on campus. Besides, my parents would be so mad if they found out I was doing this.

3 months ago

the big switch

http://www.poketheeye.org/?p=292

update: 2015... link is no longer the same

Choking Hazard

A friend is getting engaged. They are going to Vegas. Little packages of fun have appeard on the table. Bubbles and Confetti. I was staring at the confetti thinking about how this had been purchased with the intent of throwing it every which way, at what ever appropriate time. Later it would be Vacuumed and or swept up and thrown away. I wondered how much a little box of litter costs. But I guess it's all litter in the long run.

I was thinking about all that when it occurred to me that box should have a choking hazard warning on the box. It was full of tiny little plastic discs, surely it would have a warning. I flipped it back to the front and indeed it had warning. Choking Hazard. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that you can choke on something? Who are these people who can read, but are still at risk of choking on little plastic things? Or the parent out there who takes the box of choking hazards out of their childes mouth to see that it doesn't have a warning on it. To then return it to the child. “I guess it's not a choking hazzard, there's no label.” Have you ever choked on anything? Did you think “holy crap they should put a warning on that?”

I imagine most people assume, as I do, that that warning isn't there to stop stupid people from choking. Every little box of little plastic things is labeled to stop the small contingent of people out there who are smart enough to know that it's a choking hazard, but stupid enough to prove it. The same reason that coffee is labeled hot. Because someone was stupid enough to think that dumping coffee on ones self is an act which could be prevented with a label, and the lack of label on that coffee is a malicious act wich requires retribution.

I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just label these people who keep choking on stuff. We could just make them all wear t-shirts that say choking hazard. It would be so much more simple. The things which are at risk of choking are labeled as such and the rest of humanity can go back to assuming that the vast majority of us are smart enough to know what is or isn't a choking hazard. Unless of course the rest of humanity isn't smart enough to know a choking hazard when they see one.

I'm inclined to think that's not the case but just thinking about it makes me feel as if a pair of hands are closing around my neck.

20% of homeowners 'underwater'

1 in 5...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/real_estate/underwater_homeowners/?postversion=2009050609

Study finds more than 20% of U.S. homeowners - about 20 million residences - owe more than their homes are worth.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- More than 20% of American homeowners owe more on their mortgage debt than they can sell their homes for, according to an industry report released Wednesday.

The real estate Web site Zillow.com reported that 21.8% of all U.S. homes, representing more than 20 million residences, were in a "negative equity" or "underwater" position after prices dropped more than 14% nationally in the year ended March 31.

"A combination of falling prices and low down payments has left many borrowers underwater," said Stan Humphries, Zillow's vice president in charge of data and analytics. "In some markets, more than half of all homes are in negative equity."

Those markets include Las Vegas, where a whopping 67.2% of homeowners would have to bring cash to the table if they sold their homes. Other markets are Stockton, Calif., where 51.1% of homes are underwater, and Modesto, Calif., where 50.8% of homes are in that position.

"That's really important, because homeowners in negative equity have fewer options if they take financial shocks such as divorce, job loss or medical bills, making foreclosure more likely," said Humphries.

Zillow.com based its estimate of negative equity using its own home price estimates. It obtains these by collecting sales records and applying the price trends it finds to other homes in the community. It then compares its home price estimates to the initial loan balances to determine if borrowers have fallen underwater.

The analysis is based on the mortgage balance at the time of purchase and the price changes that have occurred since. It does not take into account that some homeowners may have paid down principal along the way.

Humphries believes it's a conservative approach because the trend has been for people to strip value from their homes in the form of home equity loans and lines of credit, than to add value by paying down their mortgages.

"I think our number is either right on or negative equity may be even a little worse," he said.

Some dispute: Not all industry insiders back these findings.

"Zillow's negative equity estimates strike me as a little high," said Richard DeKaser, a real sate analyst and founder of Woodley Park Research in Washington D.C. He pointed out that other estimates of negative equity from Moody's Economy.com, for example, and First American (FAF, Fortune 500) CoreLogic, have not been that elevated.

The last CoreLogic report was for data through the end of 2008 and it estimated that 8.3 million homes were underwater.

Moody's Economy.com chief economist Mark Zandi estimated that 14.8 million were underwater at the end of March.

Foreclosure risk: Underwater homeowners are much more likely to lose their homes to foreclosure than borrowers with value remaining. That negative equity contributes to foreclosures is supported by Zillow's statistics on foreclosure sales.

In Los Angeles, 20.3% of owners are underwater and foreclosures accounted for 34% of all sales. In the New York metropolitan area, by contrast, only 7.8% of homeowners are underwater and a mere 4.5% of all home sales during the past 12 months were foreclosures.

Negative equity makes it harder for housing markets to revive.

"It puts increased downward pressure on housing prices as defaults increase and add supply to markets," said DeKaser.

It also makes homes more difficult to sell. Underwater owners either have to bring cash to the table in order to pay off the balances of their debts not covered by the sale prices of their homes, or they have to get their lenders to agree to "short sales," for less than what they owe, and have their lenders forgive the unpaid debts.

The problem may be easing a bit. Zillow did report that price drops seem to be moderating in some hard-hit cites, indicating that they might be approaching a bottom, according to Humphries.

"Places like Modesto, Calif. have recorded a couple of quarters of flat or diminishing year-over-year declines," he said. "That's what constitutes the good news in this report."

woman-haters

..This man was wearing an immaculate white suit, a pale blue shirt and a yellow satin tie with a bright stickpin.
I couldn't take my eyes off that stickpin.
A great white light seemed to shoot out of it, illuminating the room. Then the light withdrew into itself, leaving a dewdrop on a field of gold.
I put on foot in front of the other.
"That's a diamond," somebody said, and a lot of people burst out laughing.
My nail tapped a glassy facet.
"Her first Diamond."
"Give it to her, Marco."
Marco bowed and deposited the stickpin in my palm.
It dazzled and danced with light like a heavenly ice cube. I slipped it quickly into my imitation jet bead evening bag and looked around. The faces were empty as plates, and nobody seemed to be breathing.
"Fortunately," a dry, hard hand encircled my upper arm, "I am escorting the lady for the rest of the evening. Perhaps," the spark in Marco's eyes extinguished, and they went black, "I shall perform some small service..."
Somebody laughed.
"...worthy of a diamond."
The hand round my arm tightened.
"Ouch!"
Marco removed his hand. I looked down at my arm. A thumbprint purpled into view. Marco watched me. Then he pointed to the underside of my arm. "look there."
I looked, and saw four, faint matching prints.
"You see, I am quite serious."
Marco's small, flickering smile reminded me of a snake I'd teased in the Bronx Zoo. When I tapped my fingers on the stout cage glass the snake had opened its clockwork jaws and seemed to smile. Then it struck and struck and struck at the invisible pane till I moved off.
I hand never met a woman-hater before.
I could tell Marco was a woman-hater, because in spite of all the models and TV starlets in the rooom that night he paid attention to nobody but me. Not out of kindness or even curiousity, but because I'd happened to be dealt to him, like a playing card in a pack of identical cards.

A man in the country club ban stepped up to the mike and started shaking those seedpod rattles that mean South American music.
Marco reached for my hand, but I hung on to my fouth daiquiri and stayed put. I'd never had a daiquiri before. The reason I had a daiquiri was because Marco ordered it for me, and I felt so grateful he hadn't asked what sort of dirnk I wanted that I didn't say a word, I just drank one daiquiri after another.
Marco looked at me.
"No," I said.
"What do you mean, no?"
"I can't dance to that kind of music."
"Don't be stupid."
"I want to sit here and finish my drink."
Marco bent toward me with a tight smile, and in one swoop my drink took wing and landed in a potted palm. Then Marco gripped my hand in such a way I had to choose between follwoing him on to the floor or having my arm torn off.
"It's a tango." Marco maneuvered me out among the dancers. "I love tangos."
"I can't dance."
"You don't have to dance. I'll do the danceing."
Marco hooked and arm around my waist and jerked me up against his dazzling white suit. Then he said, "Pretend you are drowing."
I shut my eyes, and the music broke over me like a rainstorm. Marco's leg slid forward against mine and my leg slid back and I seemed to be riveted to him, limb for limb, moving as he moved, whith any will or knowledge of my own, and after a while I thought, "It doesn't take two to dance, it only takes one," and I let myself blow and bend like a tree in the wind.
"What did I tell you ?" Marco's breath scorched my ear. "You're a perfectly respectable dancer."
I began to see why woman-haters could make such fools of women. Woman-haters were like gods: invulnerable and chock-full of power. They descended, and then they disappeared. You could never catch one.

---
an exerpt from the book The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.