starbug1

"retarded" is not a sexually transmitted disease.

4th season: "Retarded" the one with the discovery documentary on firetrucks, funniest espisode to date, IMO.

Tungsten has the highest melting point (family guy- "education television")

My thoughts exactly.

What exactly is so smooth about it? Both parties have the right to free speech yes. However, the ones who are speaking out against the other are openly encroaching on this vested right. Protestors are using their free speech to villify an author's rights to free speech. You are presenting contrasting ideas. If the book is threatening, then don't the people still have a right to choose. I'll have you know that what's harmful in society is not weighing much on books. In fact, its rarely a problem. I'll mention the only time in recent American history that its ever been a problem. The book, "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, has been linked to the assassination of John Lennon, and the assassination attempt on President Reagan. Is the author responsible? no. Is the book responsible? possibly. The fact of the matter is that Chapman (Lennon's killer) and Hinkley (Reagan), who also stalked President Carter, both had histories of mental illness. It's their obsession with the book that caused them to do it. Okay. I can admit this is a problem. Yet, you don't see it very often, so what's the craze? Also, even in the case of Hinkley, the book wasn't the main "poison" I'll call it. He, in fact, attempts to assassinate the president because of his brain-washing infatuation with the movie "The Taxi Driver." This instance as well as the many deaths and shooting regarding restrictions on video games and the dangers of tv is a much more powerful "harm to society" than any book I can think of. I don't believe that any book even comes close the danger that video games and t.v pose. These are substantial motivators to do crime. A superlative example is those idiot kids who went out and hurt themselves after watching Jackass. Again, the Columbine shootings. Again, the taxi driver... The stimuli responses, urging, and motivation are much more potent in tv than in books because there is proof. And while video games can be said to have its benefits, such as better hand-eye coordination, can this be said to have more benefits than literature and reading? I don't think so. As to immoral atrocities in a book, rape, pornography, racism. These are taboo topics and the author knows it. Generally, he knows what his audience is. I'd like to think that the people who don't approve of this type of literature won't read it, but you always have those that stumble upon it, or even go out of their way to find the book and locate all of the injustices in it. I agree that there is some problem with these "restricted" subjects. I DO NOT, however, agree preventing the people from the exposure of knowledge and oftentimes truth to these books. If we were without these topics in some books, do you really think that society would be better? The reverse repercussions, I think, would be the same if not worse. We would be ignorant and much more suceptible to ideas when presented them. If you absolutely revel in fire and just love seeing pages crinkle in the flames, you can burn your fill of books for all I care. Mass book burnings, on the other hand, are NOT acceptable. This is a form of extremist censorship that has no benefits other than for the dictatorship ideal. Preventing free thinking, and free publication of ideas has never lasted in the end. And by preventing these things, along goes the freedom of speech and religion, it's a whole meltdown, as in the case of nazi germany, that rules out freedom altogether. Criticism, to me, is a very natural process when one reads any piece of work. I also love to read what the scholarly critics have to say about my favorite book or play. It's amazing because some books of criticism are actually longer than the actual book they are criticizing. Hamlet, for instance, has so much literary criticism that it outranks any other collective criticism for a single piece of literature. Criticism of books is healthy. To the point of protest for the feeling that this book will cause immediate danger is a different point. Anyone can criticize. Not everyone can devote the time to picket or form groups to get a book off the shelves. What I want to know is why they think the books are the immediate problem. To me they patronize youth, thinking they can't think for themselves rationally. Of course, there are exceptions, and there are measures for keeping such influences away from these exceptions. Again, you have the right idea, but still not sure where you stand. Harry Potter is an interesting case. So many books sold at the time that it looked like it would outprint the Bible! It's much easier in this case to see why people were worried. Some of the protests might have been valid, but their explanations weren't. A lot of it was embarassing and downright stupid. In addition, i know kids whose parents won't let them watch or read HP because "it's witchcraft." I mean, only someone of the most thickheadedness and naievity could see past the wonderful story of friendship and hardship and see the devil. I firmly believe that the books are the most furthest away from this notion that I have ever read. The books cannot be judged by headlines and articles and reviews. One has actually go to sit down and see from the book the moral and ideas it conveys. I will disprove and stamp in the dirt any claim demoralizing Harry Potter. The books have boosted youth reading, and boosted younger reader book sales, which is something that can't be faulted. I have yet to read about of group of teenagers forming a cult and performing a sacarifice to bring back "the Dark Lord."

Because of the supposed inforcement of the first amendment, there are no books currently banned in the U.S... Wikipediahas an excellent coverage of banned books, recent and past, and an archive of links to explore on the matter. Here is a list of books banned in the 1990s and another up to 2000. Although I didn't find a list of books banned in 2006, I know specifically that some southern states or even individual schools have recently banned within the past five years, and several states within the past decade, shown on the link. I can name one book, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which is a coming of age novel, that was banned within the past 5 years. And I'm certain that there has been more in the past 2 or 3 years. If not officially banned, then challenged so much that the protestors took it into their own hands. This seems to occur quite often. Therefore, that's why there are associations like ALA that host Banned Books Week, and you can buy these books from specialized banned booksellers. As a side note, literally thousands of books are challenged every year just in the US. And, as shown in the wikipedia link, there are HUNDREDS of books that were banned continuously, others continously challenged. My point is that quite of few of these books have won awards or are books of award winning authors. Moreover, you'll also find children's books banned, even the Newberry award winners, a distinguished award for children's literature; one of whom Roald Dahl, the creator of Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. James and the Giant Peach was actually banned! I can hardly believe some of the reasoning behind it. The first amendment is supposed to given us freedom of speech, relgion, press, and we still challenge books for an issue as simple as euthanasia., which a lot of us witness by having our pet dog put to sleep. Others for such things as mild horror elements, such as R.L Stines Goosebumps series. (you got to be kidding me) I'm not advocating book burning or book banning in the slightest. I did not say books "should be burned" my final comment in my last post was a pun on what has actually been proven affective. Just my way of conveying discontent. My arguement is not to give you a book that is currently banned. This does not prove my point. I have given more links above as a way of showing the overall ignorance and disregard for rights as shown by those who challenge books. Read this short essay by Kurt Vonnegut. He says He makes an interesting point here with the accusation that books cause people to rape, or do any other type of crime. It's almost scoffable. Could media, television, high school, every-day life be less self-imposing and suggesting of bad behavior? I think not. Because, you see, media, high-school, everyday life, these things are unavoidable. Books only impress themselves on people, their ideas are only conveyed when people open them and read. I particularly like this quotation: "Did you ever hear anyone say, 'That book had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me'?" ---Joseph Henry Jackson Here is the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." which vonnegut included in his essay. ???? Sound a little funny. I don't care if no books are currently banned in the US. Books are still constantly challenged, and, although Vonnegut is an ass, he makes a point.

I think the time matters, of course. There are still books published that are taken off the shelves, that list doesn't include them. I found a list that had banned books and controversial books banned in the last five years, but I couldn't find it when I checked again. As to the difference in "once-banned" books, most, if not all should be looked at like history. Since it was a book published way in the past, those pissed off parents and administraters who want to ban a book like huck finn because it contains the word nigger is just a way to blow off hot steam. The dangers are so slim; it's like when Shirley Jackson's "the Lottery" was banned right after it was released. The violence depicted in that story comes no where near the language and violence depicted in other contemporary books of the same time; this is a moot point, but also note that the violence was only implied, and the story didn't actually say anything bad, it just had a "feel." Likewise, comparing the books today, including media, language, violence, sex, to me, is more loosely restricted. Even with sex books on the shelf of the local barnes and noble, or stephen king books containing every one of the seven dirty words multiple times, with "once-banned" books on the shelves in books stores, and provacative tv stations like MTV, you still see Huck Finn and books like it being argued over. And, I don't know if this is right, but Huck Finn is still banned in some southern schools. My idea of it is, kids, students, adults, can get whatever they want. They can get whatever book they want, we have the internet, local libraries, and media everywhere, and yet still books are argued about, so one school in the south representing black people, its wrong to keep books with the word "nigger" out because it teaches kids that its okay to use that word. Also, in my opinion, the only affective way of keeping a book out of the hands of the public, is the dictator-powered book burnings. This is effective, because now there is no book to hide. They find it, they burn it.

Well, sometimes booked are banned for the use of the "N" word, and other are out with just one or two slips of profanity. What's funny is that some of these "profanity" books are banned while others are not. I suppose it only takes a few letters from some pissed off reader to get a book out of a school, and a few more to get it out of the state. Mark Twain's Huck Finn is still debated about today! Recently, in the 90s, it was on the top five controversial books. For over 100 years the book hasn't had a peacable market! Other books are banned because of sexuality. Now, turn on a tv and flip through to the music channels and tell me if you can't spot sexuality or profanity within 2 min. I bet you will. Who knows more about the mentality behind book burning?

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html here is a great link on books banned in schools and elsewhere. Also notice that Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species comes up. So does Shakespeare and dozens and dozens more, some, I think, don't have any right being banned. Some explanations are very vague and almost unbelievable. For example: and... Also mentioned is the Bible, Gone with the wind, etc. etc. What are some of your thoughts about banning books? In the school system, in libraries, anywhere? Here is a site giving some history on the more extremist "book banning," including the famous book burnings: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bookburning/21stcentury/21stcentury.htm Also, here is a list of some recently banned books http://books.google.com/books?q=Recent+books+banned&oi=print

Isaac Asimov is the only author to publish a book in every category of the Dewey Decimal system except philosophy.

Hey, starbug here, maybe you've heard of Red Dwarf?? I'm a senior in highschool whose interestes emcompass almost every field of science; likewise, I'm only moderately learned in each subject. I can get down to some major biologizing, I study the periodic table for fun, and I desperately try to learn the math I need for physics since physics isn't a class taught at my school!!

I know that in 14th 15th and 16th century Europe, family members were inordinately kissing, and even on the mouth, what today we would consider sexual. No one today kisses their sister's or brothers on the mouth in the same fashion they would their girlfriend/boyfriend. I have no idea the origin of early kissing or the natural behavior process, but I do know that we (humans), like animals, if were shut away from any form of civilization, would know what to 'do' when we were introduced the opposite sex. It is a natural urge and behavior that we can't get around. There are certain instincts that humans are born with, and they are unquestionable and often unaided, they just come with life. i.e eating, sleeping, emotion, mating. unavoidable.

Apart from anti-cancer therapy with oglionucleotides, is there no room for natural mutation. After all, a triple-DNA may be what makes up extraterrestrial lifeforms. Now that we have legitimate prove of triple-DNA sequences, how about quad-DNA structure??!!??