<p>Ok. This is probably the silliest question you've heard but based on my little list in the past 12 months I've read/re-read 58 books (I'm a very quick reader-- a book worm :p)</p>
<p>Cry the beloved country (Alan Paton) ->reread (read it when I was very young)
The Mind of South Africa (Allister Sparks)
I, Lucifer (Glen Duncan)
Artemis Fowl (Eoin Colfer)
Brave New World (Adolus Huxley) ->reread
Slaughterhouse Five (Kurt Vonnegut)
Flowers for Algernon (Daniel Keyes)
1984 (George Orwell) ->reread (3rd time)
Cat's Cradle (Kurt Vonnegut)
Pygmalion <a href="George%20Bernard%20Shaw">play</a>
Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed (Jared Diamond)</p>
<p>This is just a few books in March/April. The bulk of my reading was done over the summer.</p>
<p>I am afraid however that if I list all of this the admissions officers will be like... you know... My mom suggested that I should list only the ones that I really liked or the ones that were the most challenging. There were a few that had tremendous impact on me and took /a while/ to digest. But honestly, every book I've read has had its unique virtues. But once again I'm afraid if I just list the "prestigious" ones... it'll throw me off balance.</p>
<p>Don't list only the "prestigious" ones or the ones well known. But try to list a few from each "genre" as it may be seen? <em>considering your list</em> Though that's pretty well-rounded as it is. (Don't people reread books anymore? I absolutely do.)</p>
<p>Maybe list the books you would recommend the most fervently to friends, if you can choose from your list?</p>
<p>I absolute do not know what I am talking about, but perhaps you could work this into a supplement? Write a one page or so personal essay on a few books and then include the full list of books perhaps with a short 1 liner reaction on each one? It could work, and colleges like to see something different. Just a thought ;)</p>
<p>Goodness gratious! Has anyone ever READ the Patriot Act? There is nothing a reasonable person should find the least bit offensive about it. And all of it is constitutional to the T. Ahh the fruits of a biased, liberal, and alarmist media. Remember when the media told you that after Katrina went through there were gangs raping and pillaging in the streets? And that thousands of people had died? And that the Superdome was filled with bodies? Even FEMA believed it, they sent a refrigerated truck to the Dome to pick up all the bodies they heard about on CNN. Guess what? IT WAS ALL A LIE.</p>
<p>I think the Patriot Act is weak I would much rather have a cop stationed in my house watching me 24/7 following me around the house, that way I could never do anything illegal.</p>
<p>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</p>
<p>Just kidding but in reality - if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about from the Patriot Act- RIGHT?</p>
<p>Without getting into politics or my opinions at all, this is a pretty dumb statement:
[quote]
Just kidding but in reality - if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about from the Patriot Act- RIGHT?
[/quote]
Just because something does not personally affect me does not mean I have nothing to worry about. That's like saying the Holocaust was nothing to worry about for those not targeted. It's simply not true. I care about what is right and what is wrong, no matter whether I am a person directly affected by whatever it is. </p>
<p>About the books, what is this list for and how much room do you have? If they ask for a list of the books you've read in the past year, write them all. If they ask for a sampling, pick the ones that you got the most out of that showcase your personality. Remember, one of your recs may refer to you as "well read" or something like that, in which case your book list will not look strange at all.</p>
<p>Yes 1984 does rule, but everyone and their mom is going to put it down as their favorite book... It is a fantastic read (thus 3 reads) but I know a ton of other people who'd say the same, with more eloquence. </p>
<p>Ah, I feel like ignoring this essay... too much trouble. =/</p>
<p>I am not sure what it is you are worried about--that the admissions officers will think you are boasting? That they won't believe you read all these books? That they will think you're trying too hard to impress them if you list them all? That these books all have a certain bent? Not sure what your concern is.</p>
<p>There is no need to list them--say that you've read 58 books in 2005. Tell them why you picked the ones you did (it seems to me you picked some atypical ones, the sort most students wait to be assigned to them, so that's interesting). Or describe why you keep a book diary (if you do--you said you had a list). List a few examples of bppks you read; talk about one or two that seemed meaningful or that surprised you. Whatever it is, find some criteria for singling out a few. You can't talk about all 58.</p>
<p>"Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided."</p>
<p>What is in the LEAST bit offensive about that?. All that means is that they don't have to TELL the suspected criminal exactly what they took. I can definitely see how the provision is useful in counterterrorism, and I can think of no reason whatsoever why that is an infringement upon anyone's rights or offensive to anyone. I just don't get it.</p>
<p>Oooooo an incoherent left wing thinktank? If you can call it thinking. I like how they call it the "library provision". They, and you, conveniently ignore the fact that even if the President or the FBI or whoever wanted to go after someone's library records (which has never happened) they would still be legally required to present the proof to a judge or judges and recieve a court order. All 215 says is that they don't have to TELL the suspected terrorist that they looked at his reading list. Given that a court order must be obtained, it all seems very reasonable to me.</p>
<p>The NSLs refferred to by the article are perfectly legal and constitutional, and in fact nearly identical tactics have been used by every administration since the Carter.</p>
<p>How can you say the Patriot Act is not offensive? It's the embodiment of legalist tactics. The same legalist tactics that were used in totalitarian Russia, nazi Germany and imperial China. </p>
<p>Don't tell me that Americans reporting other Americans as terrorists with no basis for judgement is a good thing. Ratting out your neighbour is a no-no in my book.</p>