h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wow I sense some animosity there. Might some be offended that you catagorise all Americans with Crack Pot Liberals who feel it is there mission to dictate your life?

Even though I'm all for the Harry Potter and books stimulating imagination, I feel I can speak for most people all over the world that I wouldn't feel right about children reading books about pedophilia. For Chrisake who would want to read something like that?!

I think it's the crackpot conservatives that are being bashed here.

I haven't read the Harry Potter books myself, but I'm fairly certain paedophilia is not an element of the story.

Perhaps, you're suggesting that parents or schools should be entitled to prohibit their children from reading questionable material? I don't think there's a person here who'd disagree with you on that one.

The question is, however, whether HP is really questionable. The answer being, "Of course not. Don't be stupid."

The HP debate is not just an American issue. Morons across the world are saying the books should be banned.

However, it seems some are actually bright enough to realise that their primary argument is not going to sway the masses. A couple of local (New Zealand) schools have banned the books, spouting the same old rubbish, that it encourages kids to worship Beelzebub, drink blood, hold ritual sacrifices in the woods, etc. But some have backtracked on this, fearing accusations of being Puritanical fruitcakes, they've changed their story and now say that they're protecting the children from the evils of mass-marketing.

Gimme a break...

And all this because JR Rowling wanted to write a book for kids to show you that you do stand a chance even if you are spotty/four-eyed/puny/constantly ridiculed. Which is a laudable message for a book for children to contain.

Erm, I wasn't calling Harry Potter pedophilia material... Did you read the submition that I replied to? He was talking about a Book that school in Germany read that involves a love affair between a 10 year old and a 50 year old

Apologies, Andrew. The new system of replies is not as easy to decipher as it once was, and I mistakenly assumed you were replying to the previous posting.

Everything becomes clearer now...

In England there has also been a case of a Catholic school banning Harry Potter books because "it portrays witchcraft as being a good thing" whereas "the Narnia books portrayed witchcraft as being evil and being defeated by good"... I have heard other sources about parents not wanting children to read them in case they try jumping off buildings on broomsticks...
But are the books still children's books?
There has gradually been a rise in the amount of swearing in the books, and in particular Goblet of Fire includes frequent uses of "git" and "ruddy" and also contains a reference to the F-word!
And also, some of the subject matter is also getting a bit dubious for young children; dramatic cold-blooded killings makes me feel ill, and also the "crucio" curse putting people into upmost agony! Not to mention the blood letting and the self amputation! No under ten should be allowed to read that...
Harry is growing up now, and so are the books and their subject matter. The only trouble is that young children of seven and eight are still discovering them and wanting to read all of them at once, without growing up every year before a new one is released.
I mean, quite honestly, if they made a film or dramatisation of Prisoner of Azkaban or especially Goblet of Fire, even if it only contained what is described by Rowling and if it was done properly, then I'm sure that a lot of the scenes might merit a 15 certificate.
Call me harsh if you like, but a lot of the material, whilst many people are just able to accept that it's just a book, on the screen it's a lot more graphical; even if you don't actually show people cutting their own hands off you have to show *something* to tell the story. And of course, a lot of it would be extremely frightening.
But anyway. My rants over now...see you later...

Blue Sky

First let me just say that peanuts are not nuts (they're legumes), but are nonetheless one of the most deadly (if not common) allergies in the US. Anyone wishing to further discuss allergies might want to consider starting or finding a forum under the Health section of the Guide.

Now, as for tangents that have something to do with Harry Potter's reception in the States, I have this to say: I live in Boston, and the only religious ban on HP I've seen in this area comes from Jehova's Witnesses, who don't approve of a lot of stuff, Halloween and Christmas included. Personally, I think they're entitled to be as crazy as they want to be, as long as they don't try to stop others from enjoying HP and the like. I do feel sorry for their kids, though. When I was in school, there were always a couple of JW kids who had to sit out just about every fun activity at school besides sports. If you ask me, that's the real sin.

I agree with Sho that the only books that should be banned from school libraries are those which incite hatred. I would like to point out, though, that this is a fuzzy line. Narnia has some horribly racist depictions of Muslims, or "Calormens", as Lewis renamed them. The books support Lewis's position that people form southern lands who wear turbins are uncultured, ruled by mean kings, untrustworthy, threatening, liable to destroy all that is good, etc. While he was by no means the only British thinker who held such opinions (Edward Said's book "Orientalism" is the definitive text on the subject, though it deals mainly with painters), he is probably the most widely read by children. Should Narnia be banned for this reason? I don't think so, but I DO think that it is the responsibility of teachers and parents to be aware of the way dark skinned people are portrayed in the books, and to initiate discussion about this portrayal with kids who are reading the books. It's a great way for kids to learn that a book can be brilliant, but also flawed at the same time, and that they can have their own opinions, and don't need to believe something just because it's in print.

Oh yeah, pedophilia should be banned too, though that should go without saying, as it's illegal. Stuff like hate speech, sex, and violence should be kept out of school libraries, simply because children are not mature enough to understand these issues in their raw form- it's just not age appropriate.

One noticable feature of calls for book-banning is that the vast majority of those clamouring for censorship won't have read a word of the books concerned. They're placing a great deal of faith in a very small number of vociferous people who are manipulating them for their own ends. In my opinion, that's more dangerous to democratic society than practically any book.
I haven't read the books either, so in the absence of any direct knowledge, I'm neither calling for their banning, nor advocating that they be required reading for every child.

Returning to the subject of lawsuits in America....
Right now I'm living in Russia, and their attitude to this kind of problem is "Well, if you are daft enough to open a door on a high speed train, fall out, and kill yourself, then thats just fine." As a consequence, on the same hypothetical train, there will be no warning signs, and the door won't be locked, and anyone falling out of the train will get no sympathy and no recompense. Now at first I found this very seductive, I am an adult person and really I am quite willing to accept the consequenses if I do something stupid; it made me feel much free-er and released me from the creeping feeling of Big Brother catching up with me that I get in Britain (OK, call me paranoid).

BUT, whilst I still admire this , the reality is that in Russia there is no real guarentee of any protection from law for even the most reasonable case that you could devise. Such a mindset has been imprinted purely because the Russians cannot rely on the System to provide the (sometimes flawed) protection that we have. Rather reluctantly I am forced to conclude that being embarassed about what some people think they can get away with and a certain amount of babying is a trade off for having somewhere to go when the going gets rough for you, the adult.

Well, if you believe the general impressions I get from various places, it's not like kids aren't exposed to stuff much worse than that daily. I hear kids use swear words all the time, and many I've heard talk about seeing movies I have never seen, and never will see. Kids' parents rent R-rated movies for them.

Did anyone see the well-deserved sendup of the mad Harry Potter paranoia on The Onion? It seems that, whenever something thoroughly good and refreshing comes to the attention of the world, it's soundly jumped on by people who (in my opinion) are jealous because they don't have the necessary imagination to come up with something similar.
The 'Microwaved Pet' incident did actually happen once, by the way, involving a somewhat befuddled old dear and her prized cat. I know it's not PC to laugh, but.........

As a 27 year old english male, I believe that the Harry Potter Books (x4) are exactly the books I would have wanted when I was a kid.

My understanding of religion, is that it is a belief structure based on a particular social group adopting a set of principles which they encourage others within and without their community to live by. The key word is encourage. Any religious community of any pursuasion which calls for the censorship or control of any medium (because it does not propagate their principles) is blatantly overstepping its mark. Most religions I am aware of (I am NOT an expert) claim that they welcome diversity, that all should be accepted. This should extend into art and literature. Art and literature is the extension of the individual, if one is not interested in what someone else has to say, they have the right to express their disagreement, that is all.

If you do not agree with the concept of magic being taught in an imaginary world with imaginary characters.......don't read the book.

Simple, isn't it?!!

As far as the president's "indiscretion" is concerned. I agree with you, that his wife is the only one who should whine about the affair itself. Heck I wouldn't doubt that more than half of the presidents who have been in office have had a bit of fluff on the side. That was far from my point. What I refer to is the simple fact that after having been caught, did he own up to it as a man of honor should. No, far from it, he lied to the people who elected him, he lied to the world in fact, and worse it was such a ridiculous lie. Then there you have the wonderful Janet Reno, I swear I beleive that woman would have her lips sown to Clinton's butt if she could,coming to his rescue.
Let me ask you, if it had been any average individual in this country wouldn't they be cooling their heels in the pokey right now? There would not have been any discussion about the verbage used in questioning. The little guy doesn't get that oportunity. You mention that kind of thin in a local court they'll lock you up for contempt just for the fun of it.
Now I have no doubt that you've heard the phrase "one bad apple..." Yet it seems to me that there are so few good apples in this pot, yes I will relent and allow the concept that there might actually be one or two lawyers in the country with one or two actual moral fibers left somewhere inside, to dance about in my brain for a while,but friend the concept of being a lawyer has very little with holding up the law these days. Maybe once, but not anymore.
If the woman with third degree burns, and I note the reduction, made by a judge who had at least one or two functioning brain cells left,(that's cold I realize, and probably a bit much concidering the number of good honest judges that are trying to make sense out of the mess lawyers have made of the law) How about the woman who sued McD's for a mill or two for the hair found in her burger which caused her to toss her cookies on the floor.
All of these ridiculous warning labels are the result of lawyers suing for ridiculous causes prompted by idiots who haven't the slightest idea what to do with the things they have. examples?
The microwaved pet. Think about that for a second? That's as stupid as an idividual can get. Period.
The wonderful new warning label on five gallon buckets. I have two children myself (and a microwave oven too), and "Duh" you don't leave an infant alone with a bucket of cleaning materials, NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND!! It is simply not a very bright thing to do. I do have the greatest sympathy for the family, haveing lost my first child to s.i.d.s. I understand their suffering. Yet it seems to be at this time in an average person's life that some lawyer decides, hey, they deserve millions for that moment of brainlessness, and even if they don't, I can make some money getting some ridiculous warning label put on a product. (reference Dougla Adams concerning the instruction label on a packet of toothpicks)
Next. I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF ALL OF YOU PEOPLE AGAINST THE TOBACCO INDUSTRIES. Your attacks are the height of cruelty and corrupted ideas. I am a smoker, and most likely becase of you people, will be until I die. (Hey maybe there's a law suit in that one, against the people who are against smoking. On the grounds that you pissed me off so much that I refused to quit and it killed me)
I am fully aware of the consequences of smoking, as was every smoker since the late seventies. To say that it is the neglegence of the tobacco industry is very, very ignorant. Smoking I agree is a health hazard, I do it becase I want to, and bugger the risks. I would be happy to be stuck in a room with a terminal doing senseless and boring things all day long, so long as I am allowed my nicotine, and carcenogens. There has been so much publicity simply because of the LAWYERS, and if you think that they're doing it out of concern for the public, you've then delved into the realm of utter mindlessness.
If they were so concerned for the safety of the american public, why then are they not suing the alcohol industry (of course, how silly of me, the white house must be fully stocked, now musn't it?) Alcoholism, an actual disease in this country?? ( I still wonder about that one )It kills more people, has destroyed more families, and has caused more colateral damage in this country that smoking ever came close to doing, but, is anybody going after Jack Daniels, which is made, by the way, in a county in which you cannot even buy a beer, Or Ernest and Julio Gallo. No, why? I guess R.J. Reynold's/Nabisco didn't pay their lobbyists enough, and that's the truth.
I don't mind the concept of making money, but I do mind the concept of double standards while you're doing it. If you're going to go after the one, then by God, go after them all.
Finally, I don't wish to offend, really I don't. I just wish that people would wise up and stop giving these these uncouth individuals opportunity to make a mockary of the law, and the legal system. For to the average working "Joe" it seems that the constitution and most of the other laws in this country are written in pencil to be changed and bent to the desires of who ever descides what is politically correct, and or the lawyer who gets paid the most.
Question; If O.J. Simpson had not been rich, where would he be today?
Question; If Bill Clinton were not the president, how long after being proven a liar would it have been before he too were spending some time in a cell?
Question; If lawyers are so honest, why are the people who can afford to pay them the most walking the streets while those who had no money sit in prison?

Question; If O.J. Simpson had not been rich, where would he be today?

You're right, he'd be in jail. But I also agree with the verdict. I believe O.J. is guilty of beating his wife and is getting what he deserves for that. I don't think I have enough of the facts (and nobody but O.J. does) to pass judgement on the murder. As far as evidence, the LAPD knew they didn't have enough evidence for a conviction, and they tainted the evidence. The only blood of O.J.s found at the crime scene was found after the vial of O.J.s blood was taken there AGAINST policy. And gee, the blood vial came up missing some blood! It wasn't a reliance on DNA testing that sank the prosecution, it was their reliance on tainted evidence.

Question; If Bill Clinton were not the president, how long after being proven a liar would it have been before he too were spending some time in a cell?

When has anyone ever said politicans are an honest bunch? Did you cry out so loudly when Reagan and Bush stole arms out of the US inventory, sold them to Iran, and then used the profits to buy Chinese missles from an illegal arms dealer to supply violent revolutionaries in South America? Geez, all Clinton did was get a BJ and refuse to tell afterwards, Bush pardoned the very guys who could've convicted him of more serious crimes.

Question; If lawyers are so honest, why are the people who can afford to pay them the most walking the streets while those who had no money sit in prison?

What sickens me is the 95% of the people who are on death row who are destitute and have no reliable defense. Over half of the public defenders in Texas who defended death row inmates have been in trouble for falling asleep in court, severe lack of effort, etc.

As far as the McDonalds hair incident, I haven't heard of it. You said the lady sued for millions, did she actually get a judgement in her favor? How much, if any, was she awarded? Has it been appealed yet?

The lady with the coffee did sue for millions, and won. Then McDorks appealed, and it was reduced to $100,000 or so, which barely covered her medical costs. The poor woman suffered third-degree burns to her crotch just from spilling coffee, and it was spilt because they didn't bother to put the lid on correctly. Have you ever spilt coffee on yourself? It burns for a fraction of a second, then cools. If you have a first-degree burn, it's a bit odd. That's because coffee is typically served around 110-120 degrees Fahrenheit, which isn't too far removed from your body's 98.6. The coffee she was served was estimated to be at 160-180 degrees, and was set there as a matter of policy... a high temperature could cover up the fact that they were reusing grounds or selling stuff that had been brewed yesterday (what can you taste with your buds scorched off?). That woman felt that she had been injured due to corporate irresponsibility, and two juries of her peers agreed. It's just such a shame that she didn't have the resources to fight the fight like McDonald's does.

The lady with the hair... she is an example of the other abuse of the legal system. People gold-digging, looking for any opportunity to sue. She sounds like a nut to me. I think that if we did away with excessive awards for damages in legal cases, we could do away with this. So how do we regulate the big companies? Throw the managers in jail. Stop letting them buy their way out of trouble, as it only encourages it. Did Firestone know about the dangers of those tires being recalled before the fact? Charge the CEO for murder in the second degree, and try everyone who knew about it as accessories. That'll give corporate punks a message to be more responsible.

AMEN!

Well.

I've just done a bit of research on the McD Coffee lawsuit, and it made interesting reading. I had believed that it was another example of litigation gone mad, moronic consumers making wildly ambitious claims on big corporations. The truth is that a woman was badly burned after a simple accident - she was opening the lid of her coffee to put in milk and sugar when it spilled over her. She ended up with permanent scarring over 16 percent of her body.

McD refused to pay the $11,000 medical expenses, offering only $800. It was also discovered that they had previously received 700 other claims of burns inflicted by too-hot coffee.

After hiring a lawyer, a mediator recommended settling for £225,000. McD refused and went to court, where the woman was awarded $160,000 (reduced from $200,000 because the accident was partially her fault) in compensatory damages, and $2.7M in punitive damages (about two days worth of McD coffee sales). This was later reduced to $480,000, but the final outcome was a secret settlement, details of which are unknown outside the parties involved.

So, rather than being indicative of a legal system gone mad, it's merely that other old story, evil multinational company refusing to admit its mistakes.

I've put more information on http://www.h2g2.com/A429950 if you want to find out the full facts.

I wouldn't want to be seen as any kind of supporter of massive food corporations, but I thought that coffee was generally served at around 80 degrees C (~175 F), and decent tea should be pretty near boiling point, albeit cooled a little by the milk and cup.
Also, I can understand drinks for *takeaway* orders being served as hot as possible, to ensure they'll still be more than lukewarm when actually drunk.

However, when served in a proper cup, coffee or tea are much harder to upset, particularly as you don't have to struggle to get the top off a crappy paper or polystyrene container, which would seem to be the kind of manouvre where failure is almost guaranteed to result in a lapful of coffee, whereas when normal cups get knocked over it tends to be away from the body, and over the table. The lids on many disposable cups are extremely awkward to remove even when correctly fitted.

I would have thought a better deigned cup would be the real answer, preferably one that you could safely leave the top off to allow for faster cooling. Maybe the drinks could be served cooler for in-store consumption. I seem to remember the last time I ate at one of these places (ten years ago and counting) that the drink was still too hot when I'd finished the grease-and-ketchup burger and alleged fries. However, even when rather too hot to drink comfortably, the coffee *still* tasted disgusting

No, honest, at least according to The Man Himself, Jan Harold Brunvand (somewhere in 'Too Good to be True- the Colossal Book of Urban Legends).
Recently a woman was arrested after killing her baby by microwaving it. Her defence was that she suffered a fit and thought it was a bottle. I don't know if they believed her or not.