It is good to be back here at Bookworm! During my unplanned hiatus I read a grand total of ONE books. Yes, that’s right. I have read ONE book since August 30, the date of my last real post. And I have let all your posts pile up in Google Reader. Instead, I read about fifty million diaries on dailykos, and about a hundred thousand articles apiece on huffpo and fivethirtyeight.com and mudflats and various other assorted lefty liberal blogs. “Pundit” is now right up there with “maverick” on my list of Words I Never Want To Hear Again.

So… I have lots to do now that we have a president-elect. I have blog posts to read, client work to catch up on, a book review to write, and shit, my house and yard are positively sordid.

I created this little graphic myself because I couldn’t find anything “official” at ALA. Feel free to download it (control- or right-click) if you like. And Tango Makes Three tops the list of challenged books this year.

While we’re on the topic of banned books, I came across a cute article titled “Why We Shouldn’t Still Be Learning Catcher in the Rye.” Don’t worry, the author isn’t actually suggesting the book be banned — just replaced on the sophomore English syllabus with something more shocking.

We have a free subscription to a magazine called Saudi Aramco World. My husband, who teaches high school social studies, signed up for it a few years ago when he was given short notice that he would have to teach “Middle Eastern Civilizations.” He’d never taught this class before, and he had to bone up quickly. Along the way, he discovered this magazine. The curriculum has since changed, and the class isn’t even offered any more. Nevertheless I continue to send back the renewal card each year.

According to the inside cover, “Saudi Aramco, the oil company born as an international enterprise seventy-five years ago, distributes Saudi Aramco World to increase cross-cultural understanding. The magazine’s goal is to broaden knowledge of the cultures, history and geography of the Arab and Muslim worlds and their connections with the West.”

It is a beautiful glossy magazine, absolutely gorgeous, with very high production values and great typography. As a desktop publisher myself, I find it inspiring. The articles are fascinating, too. I end up poring over the whole thing, cover to cover, every issue. It’s like a prettier National Geographic that focuses only on the Middle East.

One of my favorite articles was a biography of a historical figure I’d never heard of: Ziryab (“The Blackbird”), a musician who lived in Spain around the year 800 A.D. He was basically the medieval version of a rock star. He brought all kinds of ideas, fads, and fashions to Spain (from Baghdad) such as, for example, dessert. Yes, dessert. Some other good ones were about Saluki dogs; ceramic tilemakers in Tunisia; the history of the Obelisk, told in the first person from the obelisk’s point of view (!); and the biology of Saharan cypress trees. All written in an engaging style and perfectly calculated to appeal to history & culture dilettantes like yours truly.

I feel guilty for liking this magazine so much. Because it’s also a stunning piece of propaganda. There are times when I feel like it’s soiling our house. First of all, this thing comes from the world’s largest oil company. NOT something I am interested in supporting! And second, in the five or six years that I’ve been reading it cover to cover I have never ever detected any reference to a current event. I mean, if they are really serious about broadening knowledge of their culture and their connection with the West, perhaps they could start by explaining why they think it is okay to EXECUTE someone for talking to an unmarried member of the opposite sex. Just a thought.

I have some rationalizations to explain why I continue subscribing. First, since the magazine is free we are actually costing the oil company, ha ha! And second, remember in Little Women when Amy wears the carnelian ring as a reminder to herself not to be so vain? I always thought her argument was a bit specious, but whatever. Anyway, I keep Saudi Aramco World lying around because it reminds me that propaganda comes in many forms, and it can be seductive.

Other times I think that the reason I keep it is to remind myself not to generalize too much. Living here in the post-9/11 USA it is easy to forget about the beautiful things that came from the Arab and Muslim worlds. And make no mistake, there is great beauty. It’s hard to reconcile, though.

What do you think? Would you subscribe to this magazine?

I had to scramble at the library yesterday because I’d forgotten, and I had Joey and Daniel with me. Off the top of my head the best I could come up with was In the Night Kitchen for Daniel, Iggie’s House for Lena, and The Chocolate War for Joey. I doubt Iggie’s House has ever been banned, actually, but it’s by Judy Blume and it was all I could find on short notice while simultaneously keeping an eye on Daniel.

I still have to choose a banned book for myself. Any suggestions? What are you planning to read this week?

Let me add a bit from a Civics teacher’s perspective. I’ve been showing Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to my four classes of ninth graders, as we study the legislative branch. We’ve been seeing it in chunks of 20-30 minutes, so it stretched over the last few days of class, and we had Monday off for an in-service, so today we’re finishing it.

There are so many wonderful moments and aspects to the movie. It’s hard to limit myself here in talking about it, but choosing one thing to say, the timing turned out to be wonderful: as the country seemed to shrug off rule by a “corrupt machine” in a manner that is essentially up-from-the-people, students were soaking in a warm bath of idealistic “America-can-work” messages. And even though it’s an old movie with dated dialogue and long-dead actors, the kids loved it. That the country was at a fever pitch of political awareness, and focused on Congress and issues of corruption, probably had something to do with that.

I generally resist showing full-length movies in class because they take a lot of time for sometimes limited educational content. This is one time that a movie definitely worked — and we’ll spend a good half hour tomorrow talking out what aspects of the plot relate to textbook aspects of Congress.

I appreciate all the work the Democrats put in to making my lesson a success.

I had been very worried that the election would again be stolen or obviously less than wholesome. How do I teach Civics if we don’t have honest elections? Nice to be able to mentally walk away from that line of thinking.

A closing thought: the movie’s star is Jimmy Stewart. He was on a bomber in WWII — not a safe, protected position. I know there are real issues about WWII and the Allies’ use of bombing, etc., but he did something heroic in serving in that way, given his celebrity status. As his flickering shadow now glides back and forth on the screen and these ninth graders (they could be kids of his kids’ kids) soak up this bit of our national mythology, I think he’s still managing something heroic.

If I’m getting carried away here (and I’m sure that I am), I attribute it to having been subjected to high doses of Frank Capracorn for the past few days, operating on too-few hours of sleep, and have just seen an evil shadow lifted from our land. Who would be in their right mind given such influences?