I am one of those people who give books as presents, and am always on the lookout for new and interesting books for assorted nieces, nephews, friends, siblings. (And as my husband would be quick to point out, myself — our house is crammed with double-stacked bookcases and piles of books scattered around.)

This is, apparently, Banned Book Week. A bookstore is running a commercial on the radio mentioning books that have been banned. It included such books as “To Kill a Mockingbird”, various Harry Potter books, Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn.” (You can find a list here.)

Which got me scratching my head. These books aren’t banned. Challenged, yes, but not banned. I can still get them — though I may have to buy them as the library doesn’t stock them. But then again, a lot of the books that interest me aren’t stocked in the library anyway. No library could hold one tenth of the books in print. Not every conceivable viewpoint will be represented - deal with it.

The key point is that I won’t get arrested for reading or buying these supposedly banned books.

Various library groups go on and on hysterically wailing about censorship and banned books, but if you want something for personal use, then you buy it with your own money. A public library represents not just my interests (or there would be a lot more genealogy, quilting and any of N.T. Wright’s theology books), but those of the entire community — those that pay the taxes that support it. And every book purchased by that library represents a choice made of how to spend that tax money.

Now, it may be that Book XYZ would be a responsible purchase that would add value to the library as a service to the entire community. But maybe the library might be better served by buying something else instead — maybe some new reference materials, a car repair manual, or even (bleeeeh) a twentieth copy of Twilight.

I don’t see how it’s unreasonable for librarians to listen to their users — that is, the folks who pay the money that buys the books — when they have something to say about those decisions. And they should listen to you, too, if you want to argue the opposite. But condemning all such discussions as “censorship” and “book banning” just means that only the librarians get to decide.

There is simply no defending all this “banned book week” crockery. The number of books successfully removed (ie “banned”) could fill a thimble. This whole deal is nothing but them screaming “SHUT UP” at anyone who for any reason, wants to challenge the status quo or ask society to think a bit more deeply about what we are offering our children to read.

There are articles floating around about how there may be hope because the total number of monthly jobs lost dropped from the previous month. There is talk about the unemployment rate being at 9.7%, according to government figures.

Several people have mentioned that the true unemployment rate is closer to 17-18%, depending on how the figures are actually accumulated. From my own experience, I reckon that is probably closer to the truth if not understated.

A lot of the government figures are based upon how many people filed for unemployment benefits and how many dropped off the rolls. That is fine if everyone was entitled to unemployment benefits, regardless of the reason they became unemployed. But that is not the case. If you quit, you simply do not get any benefits. You have to be fired or show a lot of evidence why you quit, i.e., discrimination, etc.

You can Google and find many cases of people who quit because of the working conditions, because no one would listen to them when they tried to warn management about unethical or other types of problems in the workplace. Some were classified as “whistle blowers”, while other simply quit because the work environment simply became unbearable.

I know about this because I am very close to someone who simply and quietly quit. Now before you say something like, “they should quit whining” and “it was their own fault”, you should know all the facts first. When you tell management over and over that the day-to-day office goings-on are simply not right and against written policies and then treated as if you are the one in the wrong, it can get to you.  And by the way, ignoring those policies meant a lot of consumers got taken.  You and I are paying for it now through the bailouts and will be for many years.

I won’t get into specific detail, but it was a corporation which went bust and had to go into bankruptcy because of the very things even low-level management were told about and chose to ignore. And those things were uncovered through nation-wide news. They not only broke federal policies, they violated their own written policies on a daily basis.

There are a lot of people out there that are not on the unemployment rolls and were never allowed to be on them because they quit and were not fired. Now they have less chance at getting work because everyone is continuing to cut jobs, so fewer jobs are out there. 6 million jobs lost in less than 2 years.

So there are many people out there that are unemployed, not necessarily by choice, but because of their decision to leave unbearable conditions. I would guess that there are no government figures on those people just as there is no recourse because they decided to live by their principles and ethics. Some made the news, most of those people did not.

So my real point to all this is: Until the government revises their reporting methods; revamps the unemployment system to prevent having to continually extend benefits; makes the system more equitable; and revises policy on unemployment benefits, only then will we know how many people are really unemployed and how bad any given situation really is.

For those who say there is hope because the number of jobs dropped was less than expected, it would be really sensible to think before you say things like that.

Why? Because it is no consolation whatsoever to those unemployed looking for work for the last 6+ months, those who lost their homes because the money ran out, those ending up in divorce because their marriages fell apart, and to those out of work that were never able to get any benefits while looking for new work.

And yes, I do know. Been there and doing that…

Remember when unemployment was at 5.8% and just about every media outlet was wringing their hands over the state of the economy?  Well, now that unemployment is up to 9.7% (holy guacomole!!!!) the New York Times is singing the praises of “funemployment”. 

The work is often mundane: Investment research analysts are now making cold calls to voters, and headhunters are handing out leaflets at subway stations and supermarkets. 

But the experience, coming at a time of crisis in their lives, has been surprisingly powerful for many of them. Volunteering, they say, restores some of what they lost along with their jobs: a place to go every day, a reason to put on a clean suit, people to work beside, a sense of purpose. 

And for some of the jobless, the experience has triggered a profound reassessment. 

Yukyong Choi, 36, a former litigator who has not worked in a year, is now an unpaid volunteer for P.J. Kim, a City Council candidate in Lower Manhattan. 

“One thing that I’ve discovered through this process is I don’t really want to go back to that life,” Mr. Choi said. “That was a life filled with 18-hour days, and having to work with people you may not enjoy. It’s not the money anymore; I want to do things that will have a real effect on people’s lives, as opposed to just trying to get a company out of a situation.”

Put on clean clothes and have a place to go every day?  Who’d have thought it?  Why, everyone knows the unemployed – errrr, funemployed – just sit around in their undies watching TV all day. Yeah, I’m being sarcastic.  The unemployed are usually very motivated.  (Not being able to pay the electric bill or put meat on the table tends to do that.)  And anyone who sits around without dressing isn’t just unemployed, they’re unemployable. If you don’t have the motivation to get up and get going, why on earth would someone want to hire you?

And while we’re at it, could someone please compile a list of these morons who’d rather volunteer than work a day job? Because my son’s contract is up in 6 weeks, and with a wife and 2 children to support, he could use a new job right about now. I’m certain he’d gladly relieve said moron of his/her job to allow them the free time to go volunteer.

I would have thought with all of the problems that have cropped up with the mortgage systems that failed, and the various schemes that have been highlighted, that Wall Street and the banks would have learned something. Like, creative ideas sometimes are simply too over the top. But apparently, Wall Street feels they have the right to handle your money any way they want.

Let me show you what I mean. The recent headlines from MarketWatch says:

‘Life Settlement Bonds could be Wall Street’s next big act’

“SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - Wall Street is developing a product that packages life-insurance policies into investable bonds, and the plan already is generating controversy, according to a media report Sunday.

Investment banks expect to buy life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash, then package hundreds or thousands of them into bonds. Institutional and other buyers would be the primary buyers of these bonds, receiving a payout when people with the insurance die, the New York Times reported in its online edition.

With $26 trillion of life insurance policies in force in the U.S., the market for these “life settlements” bonds could be immense, the Times said.

Investment banks stand to profit from the creation, sale and trading of the bonds.

Wall Street has been searching for a product to replace the once-lucrative mortgage business, and life settlements policies are being seen as the answer, the Times said.”

Now, it seems to me that this is exactly how they did mortgage loans and got everyone into hot water, causing the mortgage crash of the century. So now they want to do the same identical thing with life insurance? So now they are also gambling with the only thing left you may have left, not to mention gambling on your life expectancy.

And guess what happens if you decide to cancel your policy. The investors continue to pay the premiums on YOUR life insurance policy and you KNOW who will have to take up the slack on those. And what happens if you decide to continue your policy until or when you pass away?

Read on:

“Yet if its efforts are successful, Wall Street’s gain could come at the expense of the insured. Experts on life settlements told the Times that insurance premiums could rise in the short term if insurers have to pay out more death claims than they had expected.”

So here we go again. Because Wall Street was not satisfied with having us bail out the banks and everyone else, now we will wind up paying more for the insurance policy we already have and pay more for any new ones that our children may buy.

So, when is Congress and the White House going to put a stop to this type of gambling with our money? It had better be soon or there won’t be any left to gamble with.

Or is it that Wall Street runs this country and the government and they CAN’T stop this type of irresponsible behavior. Obviously the Congress has no interest in doing so.

Hans Larsson, a Canadian paleontologist, says he can create dinosaurs out of chickens.

Hans Larsson, the Canada Research Chair in Macro Evolution at McGill University in Montreal, said he aims to develop dinosaur traits that disappeared millions of years ago in birds. Mr Larsson believes that by flipping certain genetic levers during a chicken embryo’s development, he can reproduce the dinosaur anatomy, he told AFP in an interview. Though still in its infancy, the research could eventually lead to hatching live prehistoric animals, but Mr Larsson said he has no immediate plans to create dinosaurs, for ethical and practical reasons – a dinosaur hatchery is “too large an enterprise.”

“It’s a demonstration of evolution,” said Mr Larsson, who has studied bird evolution for the last 10 years. “If I can demonstrate clearly that the potential for dinosaur anatomical development exists in birds, then it again proves that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs.”

Mr. Larsson claims to be inspired by movie Jurassic Park.  Ummm…was he watching the same movie I was?  The one whose message was ”science is a potent weapon, and scientist should think more about the consequences of their acts before doing dangerous experiments”?   So don’t blame me if a T. Rex shows up and has you for lunch.  Here chicky chicky!