1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen 2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien 3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte 4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling 5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee (watched film, but never finished book) 6 The Bible 7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte 8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell 9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens 11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott * 12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy 13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller 14 Complete Works of Shakespeare 15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier 16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien 17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk 18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger 19 The Time Traveller’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger *
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald
23 Bleak House - Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy 25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams (and 4 others in the series) 26 Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck* 29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll 30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame 31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens * 33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis (all 7) 34 Emma - Jane Austen*
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen* 36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe - CS Lewis (shouldn't count as got credit for Chronicles) 37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini*
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden * (saw the movie) 40 Winnie the Pooh - AA Milne
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell 42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown (read both this and the sequel and saw both movies too)
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez*
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving* (read other John Irving books, though - great writier)
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy 48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood (also saw the movie with Natasha Richardson) 49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding * 50 Atonement - Ian McEwan*
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel * 52 Dune - Frank Herbert (and the entire rest of the series) 53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons (saw the pbs movie)
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen *
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon 57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens 58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley 59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez*
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck *
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov *
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold*
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas 66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac 67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding (only the film) 69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie 70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville 71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker 73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett * (have a copy in my 'to read' stack here) 74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses - James Joyce (and while we're here ... the Iliad and the Oddysey - Homer) 76 The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath 77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession - AS Byatt 81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens 82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell 83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker 84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro 85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert * 86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry 87 Charlotte’s Web - EB White 88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom* 89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad 92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery 93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks 94 Watership Down - Richard Adams 95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole*
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas 98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare (shouldn't count as got credit for Complete Works) 99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl (and the Great Glass Elevator) 100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo (film and stage versions) ??
101
Where are the Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe?
When I read this story yesterday in the LA Times, I was so angry I had to close my browser, as any response would have been unfit for the eyes of minors.
The writer obviously has never experienced the loss of their job and continued unemployment, foreclosure of their home and repossession of their vehicle due to inability to pay their bills. This person has obviously never experienced true hunger, or had to watch their children slowly starve, and freeze during cold winter nights under a bridge, or in an alleyway. This person is obviously one of the '1%' who live behind their gated community's walls, watching FauxNews and listening to the lunatic ravings of the likes of Rush, Glenn and Sean... whose only goal is to return us to 19th century values and make sure the 'have-nots' stay in their place, and don't impinge in any way on the comfort (both economic and cultural) of the 'haves'.
I'm quite sure this person will continue to shop 'til they drop - buying the latest doodads and gadgets provided by our corporate overlords, at ever reduced prices because they are all manufactured in Asia by sweatshop workers paid a pittance, because it's better for the corporate profit model, and anyone who isn't part of that model, is the enemy.
This person is uninterested in an unemployed, homeless American, in fact this writer is uninterested in ANY American worker, unless they happen to be in the small percentage of securely-employed, or wealthy elite, and can afford to continue to buy the dreck marketed by their masters.
I applaud, Mr. Sheptock, and hope he is not discouraged by the character assassination techniques of the Tea Party Right. When Reagan became president, we also had a homeless problem, and many of them happened to be former military, suffering from PTSD and other effects of an ill-advised war in Vietnam. How did the Right respond? How did Reagan respond? He dumped even MORE people on the streets and into homelessness, by emptying the mental hospitals of patients, and cutting off support for the sick and dying.
I guess this is what the writer would like to see... in effect, homeless people should just 'go away' and not interfere with the corporate, conservative agenda...
You see, homeless people without any source of income, and no credit and no way to purchase goods and products are of NO VALUE to the corporate model of America. In other words, if you can't BUY then you better DIE.
Hooray for Eric Sheptock. Keep fighting. Encourage OTHERS to fight if they can. And, failing that, continue to shine a light on the dark underbelly of the corporate oligarchy's takeover of America.
In 2008 the citizens of the United States of America voted for a change. We elected the first black president and turned over to the the Democrats a Congress that had (for the last ten years at least) been heavily controlled by Republicans. A slim majority in both houses was the result, and throughout the first two years of the Obama Administration, Republicans in Congress and the Senate did everything they could think of to stall, delay, deny and weaken legislation for which the public had voted its consent. A small group of right wing, religious ideologues have held our government hostage, refusing to allow any real, meaningful reform to take place, and our Democratic Congress has simply knuckled under, as if they are afraid to 'offend' the venerable Republican Minority.
Ok... I understand the frustration of the electorate. I'm frustrated and disappointed by the wimpy, namby-pamby approach this Democratic Administration has taken so far in dealing with the Republican bloc. Can we really blame the congress for acquiescing to Republican demands, again and again, when the administration seemed to be all 'appease, appease, can't we all just get along?".
I'm angry that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies still have our health care system by the throat, worse, we now have a mandate to purchase insurance from a system that is not a health care system, but a disease creation system where the mass production and consumption of plastic, nutritionless food is making all of us very sick, and yet, we cannot get the help we need to change the situation for the better.
It's all about the money. The corporations want to maintain their control over our government and they'll spend as much money as it takes to keep things the way they want them.
Now, with the Roberts Court providing, in essence, carte blanche for not only US corporations but foreign interests to pour unlimited funds into our electoral system, placing attack ads against democratic incumbants and drowning out any reasonable voice, it seems that the change we all so desperately needed has been sidetracked, waylaid and in general, transformed into 'more of the same'.
The funniest part of all this is the way the 'tea-partiers' and the Republicans frame their campaign rhetoric, blaming "Obama" for the do nothing, castrated congress of the last two years, when it's as plain as the nose on your face that the constant filibustering and foot dragging came from the "Conservative" side of the aisle.
Do they really think we are that stupid?
In a word: Yes. The Republican/Corporate Party and Media are counting on the stupidity, gullibility and most of all the 'short attention span' of the American electorate. The assumed malleability of the voter by loud, offensive attack ads and shmaltzy commercials that harken back to the 1950's as if they were the 'good old days'... (try being a black person in the South in the 1950's). Their aim is to hoodwink all of us into handing the steering wheel back to the same driver who ran the bus into the ditch in the first place. Somehow, THIS TIME, they'll do better, they'll do the right thing, uh huh... sure... when pigs fly.
The REAL reason we don't have the CHANGE in government we wanted is that we were not able to replace ENOUGH Republicanswith Progressives (read, liberal democrats, independents & greens) in the 2008 election. Now we have a chance to sweep the rest of them out, and really begin to get things
done in congress, by electing people like Alan Grayson of Florida. A Progressinve Democrat who's not afraid to speak truth to power. He's running against the 'tea party' candidate who's lavishly funded to plaster the airwaves with attack ads against Grayson, and no one has to even say who's paying for all that airtime...
By manufacturing controversy and distraction through their communication and media arms, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, by keeping fear alive and stirring the pot with the Chamber of Commerce (corporate power) and the National Rifle Association, (arms manufacturers) manipulate the deluded into supporting an agenda that is FAR from people-friendly.
You see, Corporations don't care about people. They don't care about democracy, they don't care about children, the aged or infirm, they don't care about workers trying to provide for their families and make a better life for future generations. The only thing corporations care about are profits. They profit from the misery they create in our society. The Oil companies and Chemical companies, together with the Food Manufacturing, Medical Insurance and Pharmaceuticals all have a stake in keeping things just as they are.
Since the Supreme Court decided that corporations were "persons" back in 1913, there has been an inexorable march toward corporate ascendancy in America, and result is that corporations have all the rights and priviledges of citizenship, but none of the responsibilities and duties of citizenship. We have to abide by the laws that govern social interaction and if we engage in criminal activity, we know that when caught, we will have a price to pay in retribution. Corporations have no such penalties, even though they are responsible for the deaths and injuries endured by countless millions throughout our nation and the world.
The pundits go on and on about how democratic seats are in jeapordy, and the tea partiers are a force to be reckoned with .. etc, etc...
They are all of the assumption that Americans are the same lemmings they've been for the last 50 years, cheerfully leaping of the same cliff they've been herded over since 1960... and the more polarized they can make us, the better, by focusing on issues that divide us, instead of unite us. Well, we need to be united now, in our own self-interest.
Wouldn't it be funny on the day after the election to find a Democratic sweep of the whole country... or at least a strong majority in both houses? Listen, voting for any 'tea-party' candidate or Republican candidate in this election is tantamount to stepping back into the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 eras, the only legislation that will move forward is legislation for the corporations, by the corporations, and will only benefit the corporations and their holy bottom line.
Please vote Democrat, Green or Independent, Libertarian - just not TP/Republicorp. We really need to get something done in Congress for the PEOPLE, and frankly, no one else is interested in even trying ...
Ever had a really bad clog in your toilet?
Maybe you needed a 'snake' to get it out? Toilet = our Congress
Clog = Republicans
Snake = US Voters
Just be your own Roto-Rooter man!
S. Spilman
October 17, 2010
JUST WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY -
and Why Should I Care? *
Picture this:
You open your browser to your preferred search engine, and put in your keywords.
At this point, you are completely open to the entire possibility of the internet,
billions and billions if not trillions of sources of data to answer all your questions,
provide any service or product, and all that governs what you see is how closely the content relates to your search, as well as how
'search engine friendly' they are. It's at least a level playing field. Everyone has the same opportunity to grasp
the first or second page for their keyword or phrase.
Now picture this:
You open your browser to your preferred search engine, and put in your keywords.
At this point, you are bombarded with a select group of websites, as in, HERE
is the answer to your search, with a little bitty link at the bottom saying "more ->"
Now, we all know that the first couple of links on a Google search are 'paid' links, as are the 'adwords' along the right hand side, but the content between them is REAL search results, and I wonder if we are going to be missing that with this new deal between Google and Verizon.
If the next page isn't always filled with "preferred" sources, you may need to
go to the third page or further to find a site that would have originally appeared
at the top of the first page for that keyword by merit alone. The difference? "preferred" customers pay a "premium" price, and get first shot
at the visitor's attention. The ads, themselves could also be very flashy, and expensive, (not simple text links as you'd expect).
You may say: This just sounds like 'run-of-the-mill capitalism' doesn't it? And Capitalism
with a Capital "C" is the god which the elite of our nation worship, and that's a good thing, right? (Note: It's never a good idea to criticize Capitalism publicly, because, if you SHOULD get their attention, the corporations have the power (=money) to squash you like a very small bug... )
Question is: what about all the non-profits, charitable organizations that exist to help those in need? I'm afraid they won't be able to afford the price tag. What about the small one or two person online business that supports a family, or the social, political online organizations that run on very small budgets, and most through donations only. Not only is Google agreeing to all this, but Verizon, as the owner of the bandwidth, can govern the SPEED at which content is delivered as well. That means (for example) that your mom & pop online store will load painfully slow on your broadband connection, while the Verizon Online Everything pages will load lickity split. Now Verizon could do this to its customers right now, I suppose, but without Google's complicity they can't guarantee that Google will respect the paid status of those pages and list them first.
Perhaps in the interest of fairness, and 'not being evil', Google will give us a browser plugin to mark certain search results as ''spam" and move past them quickly?
What it REALLY means is that those who can pay, will play and those who can't will
be relegated to a semi-invisible 'netherworld' of the internet. The big boys will build their virtual
McMansions in the first few pages of all the search engines, and voices that are
at least currently able to be heard, will be silenced, or greatly muffled. They voices will become part of the 'great internet unwashed' and I guess that makes an an awful kind
of sense, because at that point, the internet will then more closely resemble the existing
social fabric of America.
I personally believe that the Internet should be as sacrosanct as a public utility, since it is the basis for so much the economic and social activitiy in our country and the world. It's the alternative to the Corporate Media for obtaining information and answering questions and concerns, and it is swiftly overtakingall other media, in that role as well . It does this not by destroying its competition, but rather 'assimilating' them, and distributing the content, paid or not. It is considerably more than just a vehicle for the selling of corporate products. It's a meeting house. It's a campaign headquarters. It's a newspaper, a television, the post office, a global, social networking and communications place. It provides an irreplaceable service to a much larger community than just corporate business. I believe it will be, if it's not already a vital lifeline for democracy. It's up to us whether the law will define our access to all the internet offers based on wealth of the site owner, or content of the site.
I encourage everyone to visitwww.350.org today and join in the fight. 350.org is a grassroots organization that provides a meeting site and platform for organizing public meetings, marches and demonstrations supporting capping carbon emissions, and controlling pollution in an effort to get our carbon levels back down to a livable level - at 350 ppm or lower, so that our planet can recover from the damage of fossil fuel use. and remain habitable for the human race.
Identifying "Spoofed" Websites - By Vince Barnes 
When I read this story yesterday in the LA Times, I was so angry I had to close my browser, as any response would have been unfit for the eyes of minors.
The writer obviously has never experienced the loss of their job and continued unemployment, foreclosure of their home and repossession of their vehicle due to inability to pay their bills. This person has obviously never experienced true hunger, or had to watch their children slowly starve, and freeze during cold winter nights under a bridge, or in an alleyway. This person is obviously one of the '1%' who live behind their gated community's walls, watching FauxNews and listening to the lunatic ravings of the likes of Rush, Glenn and Sean... whose only goal is to return us to 19th century values and make sure the 'have-nots' stay in their place, and don't impinge in any way on the comfort (both economic and cultural) of the 'haves'.
I'm quite sure this person will continue to shop 'til they drop - buying the latest doodads and gadgets provided by our corporate overlords, at ever reduced prices because they are all manufactured in Asia by sweatshop workers paid a pittance, because it's better for the corporate profit model, and anyone who isn't part of that model, is the enemy.
This person is uninterested in an unemployed, homeless American, in fact this writer is uninterested in ANY American worker, unless they happen to be in the small percentage of securely-employed, or wealthy elite, and can afford to continue to buy the dreck marketed by their masters.
I applaud, Mr. Sheptock, and hope he is not discouraged by the character assassination techniques of the Tea Party Right. When Reagan became president, we also had a homeless problem, and many of them happened to be former military, suffering from PTSD and other effects of an ill-advised war in Vietnam. How did the Right respond? How did Reagan respond? He dumped even MORE people on the streets and into homelessness, by emptying the mental hospitals of patients, and cutting off support for the sick and dying.
I guess this is what the writer would like to see... in effect, homeless people should just 'go away' and not interfere with the corporate, conservative agenda...
You see, homeless people without any source of income, and no credit and no way to purchase goods and products are of NO VALUE to the corporate model of America. In other words, if you can't BUY then you better DIE.
Hooray for Eric Sheptock. Keep fighting. Encourage OTHERS to fight if they can. And, failing that, continue to shine a light on the dark underbelly of the corporate oligarchy's takeover of America.
Kudos!!