Dear Huck Finn

Erasing the word 'nigger' from Adventures of Huckleberry Finn erase the dynamic that makes the book so memorable...

via Publisher's Weekly:

Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a classic by most any measure—T.S. Eliot called it a masterpiece, and Ernest Hemingway pronounced it the source of "all modern American literature." Yet, for decades, it has been disappearing from grade school curricula across the country, relegated to optional reading lists, or banned outright, appearing again and again on lists of the nation's most challenged books, and all for its repeated use of a single, singularly offensive word: "nigger."

Twain himself defined a "classic" as "a book which people praise and don't read." Rather than see Twain's most important work succumb to that fate, Twain scholar Alan Gribben and NewSouth Books plan to release a version of Huckleberry Finn, in a single volume with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, that does away with the "n" word (as well as the "in" word, "Injun") by replacing it with the word "slave".

The term 'to whitewash', as defined by Dictionary.com, means:

•  to whiten with whitewash.
  OR
• to cover up or gloss over the faults or errors of; absolve from blame.

That second meaning is sacrosanct (look that up while you're at it) with trying to censor, make invisible or control the viewing of something. Whitewashing something literally means that whatever you had before is covered by plain white... Whatever was under it, no matter how ugly (or beautiful; depends on the beholder) is gone. Whitewashing is why the media butchers facts, why politicians are all liars and why by 2020 the Iraq War might not be in history books anymore. Whitewashing is what is happening to you, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, when the publishers of one of your new editions take the word 'nigger' out of your pages in lieu of 'slave'.

The word 'nigger' is synonymous with Southern culture from the early 1800s onward. It was as American as apple pie and baseball even past the Civil Rights Movement era. Though the negative stigma attached to its use has lessened the ease of its use, no doubt there are some people who still say 'nigger' as a term of hate towards Black people. That said, 'nigger', while hateful, is a part of Southern history, which is encapsulated in you, Huck Finn. Why are they trying to take some of your thunder away?

I'll tell you why: It's because people are uncomfortable with the ugly, hateful, detestable history of our country, and would rather whitewash over it with rosy rhetoric than paint the picture as it really was. It's because most people can't stomach the way 'nigger' was casually used in the South as not just a hateful word, but a general term for Black people. It's because people would rather gloss over the way things really were, to portray things the way they want them to be.

Somewhere in Anytown, Middle America, there is a 6th grade literature class going through a tour of classic American books, of which you are a part, Huck Finn. They're going to open your pages and take in the story, but instead of getting the truth - the real, gritty truth - they'll get the sugarcoated abridged version. They'll get the version in which Huck and Nigger Jim are equals in society's eyes, not the one where Huck first sees Jim as a 'nigger' before all else. Do people really want that? Do they want you to lose your effect. One of the reasons you were such a profound book is because of the candid portrayal of the racial attitudes that pervaded the U.S. at that time. Why would they want to rob you of that privilege? Why would they want to dilute you for the sake of safety? By taking 'nigger' out of your pages, the only bad vibe going away is the awkward moment when a white student has to say it around mixed racial company (I would've been able to live without that in my classroom). Censoring you, in essence is erasing the racist ideology that this country was built on, giving an imperfect and incomplete perspective on it. You, as a classic piece of literature, deserve more than that...

Dear WikiLeaks

via TechCrunch:

A lot of people, including many governments, have problems with WikiLeaks, the site dedicated to publishing sensitive and often classified documents. (Read more background on the controversial organization). The site is currently under a distributed denial of service attack, according to a Tweet from the WikiLeaks account. The site seems to be withstanding the attack so far. It is up right now.

The DDOS attack comes just as WikiLeaks is preparing to release another set of U.S. government documents—this time diplomatic cables which may prove so embarrassing that the State Department decided to warn foreign governments ahead of their release.

'People shouldn't fear their government; the government should fear their people'

That was the crowning quote from the institutional thriller V for Vendetta, in which a civilian uprising started by the release of supposed classified government information. In the real world, however, there is a lack of fervor for calling BS on the things that the government doesn't want to tell us. That was until you came about WikiLeaks. From the moment you came out with a set of government documents detailing the failures of the Iraq and Afghanistan military offenses, it's been an uphill battle to keep you afloat. I say that not because you're losing the battle. As a matter of fact, by releasing these documents and allowing the media, and more importantly the people, to see what the government really is up to, you're making good on the idea that the government should be transparent as possible.

I say you're fighting an uphill battle because there is such a thin line between releasing useful information and information that might be detrimental to our safety. In this day and age, homeland security is ironically synonymous with secrecy, even while terrorism continues to run rampant. We're in an age of constant security checks and less privacy at the expense of that security. WikiLeaks, I'm not going to lie. As enticing as the idea of knowing exactly what the government is up to is, that information in the wrong hands is a terrorist attack waiting to happen. As much as the 'embarrassing information' might be juicy and give liberal folks like myself fodder to trash the government, your leaks are a threat. Yes, the government should come clean with the people, but some things just shouldn't be public knowledge. WikiLeaks, I appreciate your truth seeking, as well as the fact that you keep the leakers anonymous. God help those leakers if they ever get outed. I see a lifetime of waterboarding and Guantanamo Bay-style torture in that case.

Moving along, WikiLeaks, your site doesn't deserve to be shut down or blocked. There is always going to be such a thing as freedom of speech, and that right should always be respected. The government has no right to intervene in your operations no matter how much they think you will have (or already have) sullied its name. That said, it's up to you guys to show some discretion. If you're handing out complete blueprints to the White House, maybe that's not the best thing. But logs of war and conferences determining our fate abroad are fair game, in my opinion. The government can't be mad at that. If they really were concerned about the effects of some of your leaks, they wouldn't do the classifying in the first place. I guess it all goes back to whom should fear who. If you're putting the country in a compromised position, the government should fear you. If the government is going to slam the books on you, then vice versa. Just make sure your sources are reliable and won't be too upset if the entire military descends on their house in a terrorism sting...

Dear Arizona (re: 'Anchor Babies')

via CNN:

A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law. John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers. Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said. "While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

I guess if the Deep South was the front line of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, then Arizona is set to become the front line of the illegal immigration debate of the 2010's (how do you say that, by the way? twenty-tens or tens?). You, as a state, never struck me as a bastion of conservative ideals until I figured out that John McCain was from there. Yet, lately, you've been about as far to the right as can be, at least when dealing with immigration. I've got a few bones to pick with you about this whole new issue, though. Here goes:

1) The whole issue of illegal immigration is completely subjective. The people who were essentially illegal immigrants in the 1800's when the state of Arizona (and it's surrounding areas) are now going after the 'illegal immigrants' of today. That doesn't sit well with me, Arizona. Your majority (soon to be minority, thanks to immigration) is like the Monopoly player everyone hates: they change the rules when it suits them to win. Why is it cool for the United States to shanghai another sovereign nation's land almost 200 years ago by just waltzing in, but when people come here looking for a better life, and actually help the economy, it's a problem? As a matter of fact, bump immigration out West. What happened to the first settlers in the US? The Pilgrims didn't have green cards or naturalization forms when they landed on Plymouth Rock and started scalping Injuns. The truth is, America was built upon the idea of expanding and sticking it's nose into locations and regions that it had no business in, all for the sake of a better standard of living. Why are you denying people that, now that America is in a position to provide that standard?

2) Since when does a state's legislation hold stronger than federal legislation that's been the standard since our nation's birth? The Civil War made it so that states ultimately have to kowtow to the federal government in matters of legislation. Why then, Arizona, do you think it's cool to just try and get around that? The Constitution states that anyone born on United States soil is automatically a United States citizen. Point. Blank. Period. And that's regardless of any affiliation that their parents have, or where their parents' legal jurisdiction lies. It's just the law, and there should be no way that you can get around that. Children, regardless of who their parents are shouldn't be turned away. Don't sit there and call them 'anchor children,' as if they crawled out of their mothers' wombs thinking: 'Hell yeah!! Now I can help my illegal immigrant parent stay in America, take up its resources and destroy its infrastructure!!' C'mon son... You're making the most innocent party, the children, into another villain, and it is SICK to say the least...

3) Last month it was a new racial profiling law that allowed police to question, arrest and detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrants (inherently racist). This month it's denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, even if they're born on US soil. Is it just me, or are you just trying to set up a Japanese internment camp-style system in Arizona? Because that's what it seems like. The next thing you know, anyone who looks like and illegal immigrant will have to have a number and a curfew. Before long, they'll be carted off to their own district, somewhere between Hell and a Tea Party Convention, where they'll be under military surveillance. And for what? Walking across an imaginary line protected for no reason. Of all rules to enforce, that seems to be one of the more arbitrary and less well-founded of all...

Look Arizona, I'm not saying illegal immigration is completely right. Sovereign nations have a right to protect their borders and the resources of their nation from being wasted. But when you have as many as 20 million illegal immigrants living in the US, some thriving, and many helping the economy with their labor (minus taxation), there's no reason to fight that. Rather than treat them as subhumans, you should find a way to legally integrate them. I mean, what is so hard about granting amnesty? Or better yet, what's really that special about a Green Card that it's so hard to allow immigrants to have one? My guess is that the 'red-blooded Americans' don't want to see an immigrant get a job over them. Yet, all other things being equal, if the immigrant is better, then that's just tough. Arizona, you need to stop letting your citizens and the state dictate what makes someone legal or not, because for as much trouble as you say illegal immigration is, it helps the nation just as much...

Safe Sex - (NSFW)

If obscenity isn't your thing, scroll down or click next post..

Yes, this French sex education commercial is a bit on the lewd side. Regardless, the commercial gets a very simple point across to everyone. Protection is a necessity in today's world of loosened sexual boundaries. It's really no wonder European countries have a lesser STD (and HIV) rate than the United States, with how open and frank the dialogue on sex is. Not to say that Americans are prude (we're probably the most lewd country, actually), but we shirk at talking about and dealing with sex. If we took a less reserved attitude about it, there's no telling how many lives can be saved from better sexual education. Pass the video on, if you agree...