Not Your Huckleberry

New South Books (a name apparently designed to send us a message as to its intentions) has decided as an example that the use of the 'N-word' in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is offensive; and has decided to edit this Mark Twain classic, substituting the word 'slave' instead. The fact that the 'N-word' is in fact considered offensive because it implies a concept more in keeping with slavery has to make one wonder why the word Twain used is more offensive than the actual word that NSB will use. In the spirit of multiculturalism, NSB also found the term 'injun' offensive. 


Such is the nature of political correctness in the modern age. Perhaps instead, we should all find the concept of editing historic literature to the politically correct standards of today something even more offensive. If not, we must otherwise ask ourselves what other novels of that historic period (or others) we should go back and rewrite in order to bring them up to a more considerate and compassionate standard? Shakespeare talks about spousal abuse in "The Taming of the Shrew". Should the plot be modified to describe the relationship instead as one of two people quietly discussing their differences before finding common ground? "The Handmaid's Tale" from 1986 by Margaret Atwood describes every form of abasement that a woman can be subjected to. Should we sanitize it (leaving little left), or better still, ban it in an effort to fit today's code? 


But what the heck, if we're going to take the trip down the crazy road, let's not stop with changing pieces of literature ... The Old Testament of the Bible tells us how to sell one's daughter into the slavery that seems to be objectionable in Twain's novel, "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." Leviticus 21:9 goes further perhaps, giving us guidelines for capital punishment (or perhaps even murder) for those committing adultery, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife ... with the wife of his neighbor ... both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death."

Certainly these are not the only potentially objectionable passages from this holy book, and most assuredly not the only questionable excerpts that could be taken from the combined religious texts of the world today. What should the standard be for which terms or concepts are offensive and which books should be changed to fit a more modern sensibility? 


You know, this discussion came up some years back on a much smaller scale when many wide screen movies were adapted to viewing on television. Since movies filmed in processes like VistaVision, Panavision, and Cinemascope did not fit the 'small screen', people were hired to crop the frame in order to make them do so. As many movie directors have since pointed out, this allowed these editors to substitute their vision for the director's point of view. Often in fact, the visual scope or message that the director of these films was trying to convey (or both) was lost through this editing processes. 


Recent years have seen calmer head prevail and these misguided efforts rightfully retracted; and though wide screen movies often now more closely fit the aspect ratios of current flat panel televisions, channels that show movies filmed in wide screen formats choose to show them in their original form whether they fit or not. 


The same standard should be applied to the printed page, and for the same reasons. There is no way that current editors can make changes to these works without changing both the authors art and intent. Poor and politically incorrect language was used because it was common parlance of the time. It speaks to the sensibilities of the era as much as it does to the nature of the story. It sometimes speaks to the biases of the writer, an element critical to understanding the intent of the story. Without the proper historical perspective, it's impossible to understand what the author was conveying to his audience (and if history is to be any judge, pretty successfully). 


The writing of Mark Twain is well worth the effort of young people to read regardless of its purported faults; both from the standpoint of well-written literature and from its ability to describe a historical perspective on the life of the times. 


There are likewise many other good pieces of literature of a fictional or religious nature that contain questionable terms and concepts, and yet remain worthy of the effort of reading. It may mean that the teachers who direct their students to them may need to do a bit of explanation as to some of the questionable material contained therein; but that after all, is a large part of the job of teaching. In fact, helping students to gain an understanding of the complexity of such material may be the most gratifying part of such a career. As for those who seek to redefine Twain or any other classic literature, let me mix the metaphor and paraphrase something said in a more recent cinematic effort, "Tombstone". As far as this Doc Holliday is concerned, its time to tell the New South Books version of Johnny Ringo:

"This isn't your Huckleberry."

Update: I appear to not be alone in choosing this as a subject this weekend, and there is an excellent piece at Mad Jack's Shack Rant on it.

The "Stuck On Stupid" Dictionary #27

Surprisingly, we have managed to secure another entry for this lexicographic effort in a timely manner. While this does not assure that future efforts for this tome will be similarly affected, it might mean that the double espressos that we have been feeding the staff may in fact be having some effect. 


Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the title of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different to those us understand the vernacular of Toledo and Northwest Ohio. 


Drain: 
1. The term used for the plumbing fixture down which water flows, usually into a sewer. 
2. The effect that the proposed water and sewer rate increase requests of over 4o% each from the Toledo Department of Public Utilities will have on the pocketbooks of the city's residents.

The "Stuck On Stupid" Dictionary #26

I know that it has been far too long since proper additions to this reference tome have been made, but it appears that the humble scribbler in charge of such work is once again suffering from bouts of criminal laziness. The staff at Just Blowing Smoke continues to occasionally beat the wretch, and this does seem to reap positive results from time to time. 


Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the title of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different to those us understand the vernacular of Toledo and Northwest Ohio. 


Short-Sighted: 
1. Not being able to see beyond your short-term desires to your long-term needs. 
2. Creating a city-run Sanitation Department with workers whose jobs and pension pick ups are guaranteed by contract; meaning that as long as they pay their share, whether they continue to work for the city or not, the taxpayers are still on the hook. 
3. Spending millions of capital expense dollars for new trash cans and trucks for a city Sanitation Department in a ludicrous and contrary effort to save money, rather than looking for bids to privatize the service in order to actually do so. 
4. Having purchased said trash cans and trucks, seeking to now turn the responsibilities of this department over to the county government (a proven fountain of fiscal responsibility). The theory being that allowing this larger government entity to save the money that you previously refused to will somehow not only save you the money, but from your prior errors of misjudgment as well.

Style Over Substance?

Legislators are getting ready to begin the 112th Congress in Washington, and they say that they will do so with a reading of the Constitution on the House floor. While this is certainly a novel notion (having never before been done), let's hope that all of them have previously managed at least a glance or two at this document. They are, after all, about to swear an oath to invoking it and we wouldn't want them to speak to something that they haven't read (yet again): 


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." 


Republican members of the House then expect to quickly move on to a vote repealing 'The Affordable Care Act", better known as health care reform. The vote is largely symbolic, since it is doubtful that even if passed by the House it will receive anything less than a chilly reception in the Senate; but it would fulfill the campaign promises made by many of the Representatives recently elected. Should it reach the required number of supporters in the upper house unexpectedly (you know, like those unexpected unemployment numbers), it would undoubtedly die by the veto pen of President Obama. 


Speaking of the Senate, the plan there appears to be little difference in intent but some in regards to subject, with Democratic Senator Tom Udall expected to propose changes in the Senate rules in an attempt to derail the filibuster process that both parties have found pesky from time to time (especially when they're in the majority and it gets in the way of their side's legislative agenda). Again, no one actually expects the vote to get anywhere, but it should prove to be a sop to a Democratic voter base who are disgruntled about losing control of the House.

What do both of these acts have in common? They are little more than style!

Like many of the things that Congress does, there is little of substance involved with these actions. No change in expanding federal government is made. No reduction in the massive deficit occurs. No jobs are saved or created (not even government jobs). The national legislature often seeks style over substance, and usually for the basest of political reasons. Votes are taken on issues, knowing that they will fail for no other reason than to provide political cover for those voting for them. Similarly votes are taken, knowing that the margin of victory is well in hand in order to allow certain members to vote against them for the same purpose. (In both cases, usually those who are vulnerable in their district.) 


If you really want to take advantage of such cover however, you can simply be a member who either proposes legislation that has no chance of even reaching a vote on the House floor or simply give a speech to an empty room that will become part of the Congressional Record in order to provide you with great sound bites for your next re-election campaign. And then we will come to the numbers games ... The Republicans are vowing to cut $100 billion in domestic spending for the coming year; but by the time they can get around to it, continuing resolutions will have allowed 2010 spending levels to proceed for the first half of the 2011 fiscal year, making this all but impossible. Victory will be claimed however, if the spending for the last six months is juggled to the promised rate. 


Then of course, we will see these purported budget cuts approved by the House can be similarly affirmed by the Senate, where the priorities (and the party in power) are different. If the final compromise worked out between the two Houses becomes less of a cut, Republicans will nevertheless say that they kept their promise even while the business as usual of government spending continues. 


There will also I'm sure, be discussions to end earmarks, reduce the deficit, and cut waste. Most of these have been topics of every Congress in the last century, and usually occur as each new Congress begins sessions. Inevitably however they bog down when reduced to specific proposals of programs to be cut, get tied up in committees, or simply seem fade away due to more pressing legislative issues. 


This form of political prestidigitation is a talent that the legislature can usually count on, since voters long ago proved themselves to have the attention span of a five year-old. Even when the electorate is serious about taking on such subjects, most are relieved to discover that something prevents their ox from being gored in the process. 


Don't get me wrong here. I am happy that the Tea Party Movement has garnered some much needed attention for the Constitution. I am likewise pleased to see that the incoming Congress appears to be willing to deal with its own profligate spending habits (at least in theory). In my self-designated role of Curmudgeon however, I see little to make me believe that the political rhetoric on substantive change is little more than something that the EPA has recently assumed the authority to regulate in power plants (for those not keeping up, CO2). 


I hold some small hope that I am wrong in setting low expectations for the national legislature as it begins its new sessions, but my regular play of the Lottery should convince anyone that I believe in long odds. In the end, I find little in the history of this legislative body to convince me that anything that occurs over the next two years will be little more than yet another example of Style over Substance.

New Year's Eve Dialogue

While thinking about the questions that will face the youth of the nation (and the rest of us for that matter) in the year ahead, a thought occurred to me about some that I remembered from my own youth. After doing a bit of research, I found a copy of the video I from that time to illustrate my point. It is one from a live performance at Chicago's Arie Crown Theater in 1972 of a song from the "Chicago V" album, at a time when the band's original line up was still in place. Since this song was originally released that year, as the Vietnam War was ending, it might seem rather dated. Upon listening to the lyrics however, you may (as I did) find it less so. 


I will not print out the lyrics, though if for some reason you cannot understand them or are simply interested in reading them through, you can find them here. I cannot help but wonder as a new year is about to begin, if we have even now adequately answered these questions; and if these queries posed some 38 years ago (almost 39) aren't as relevant today as they were then. 


I am likewise struck by the combination of compassion and naivete as young people of my generation assumed (as all generations do) that they would be the ones to change the world. I hope that in enjoying this trip through the "Way-back Machine" and the music provided, you too are struck by the timeless message provided.

Happy New Year

Encroachment

In football when the team playing defense attempts to line up in an area beyond where they're supposed to, a penalty is called for "Encroachment" and the offending team is marched back five yards for the rules infraction. In examples that I have talked about in this blog and in a column for the Toledo Free Press, agencies of the federal government appear to be regularly committing the same type of rules violations, attempting to usurp the authority of the legislative and judicial branches of the government in an attempt to push forward a progressive political agenda. 

• Medicare regulations that go into effect January 1st are pushing forward a proposal for end-of-life care (also known as Death Panels) that the legislature rejected while passing health care reform. 
•  The Agriculture Department is taking charge of school bake sales and the food sold at them in the name of protecting our youth from unhealthy food without a mandate to do so. 
•  The Department of Health & Human Services has told health care providers that they will not be able to raise rates more than 10% without the permission of that agency, in spite of being given no such pricing authority in this industry. 
•  Having failed to gain authority through "Cap and Trade" legislation, the Environment Protection Agency has nevertheless decided on its own to regulate the emissions of CO2 (a substance that at other times and places is considered naturally occurring) for oil refineries and power plants. 
• The Department of Homeland Security has decided that global climate change is now a national security threat and will form a panel to identify and assess the impact that it has on their mission whether they have the authority to or not. 
•  The FCC has broken new ground on multiple fronts, ignoring a letter from members of the Senate as well as court rulings to assume control over parts of the Internet. 

 It would be criminally naive to believe that these Cabinet level agencies, with Secretaries appointed by the Executive Branch of government, made these moves without explicit or implicit permission if not approval of the president. In fact we were warned that this was a possibility when some parts of the aggressive legislative agenda of the the Obama Administration were rejected in Congress. 


No more egregious attempt by one branch of the government to nullify the separation of powers has occurred since "The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937". In this legislative proposal by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an attempt was made to grant power to the executive branch to appoint additional Justices to the High Court (up to a maximum of six) for every sitting member above the age of 70-1/2. Though the bill ultimately failed due to adverse public reaction, it is universally considered as an attempt by FDR to pack the High Court in order to get one more sympathetic to his New Deal legislative agenda and subvert one that was ruling parts of it unconstitutional. 


Evidently the current Administration has learned something from the mistakes of prior progressive presidents. Understanding that its current agenda was not and will not be approved and that the approval of what is still a Conservative Supreme Court was unlikely and irrelevant, it turned instead to a bureaucratic and regulatory process that was not in place on the same scale during FDR's time. If the legislative and judicial branches could be not counted on to do the right thing as proposed by the President, one need simply find an expedient way to go around them. 


Regardless of altruistic motives involved, the relative good for the country that might or might not occur, or whether you approve of the agenda being implemented is immaterial at this point. The simple fact of the matter is that the federal government was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent just such an overreaching by one branch of government and protect citizens from any one branch becoming too powerful. Any attempt to subvert those protections by any person or group must be considered inherently wrong. 


We have yet to see how the Legislature will react to some of these recently passed regulations and whether it will attempt to bring these agencies to heel through its control of oversight and budget. We must likewise wait as legal challenges are mounted to some of the legislation that apparently gave these agencies their regulatory powers. 


There is little doubt in my mind however, that a clear violation of the rules has already been committed. If it were within my power as referee of this game; I would certainly throw the yellow flag and charge this President, these Cabinet Secretaries, and their agencies with the penalty of Encroachment.

TFP Column: 2011 The Year of the Bureaucrat

With this being a week between holidays, I am assuming that much of the content for the Toledo Free Press is being put up early to provide an opportunity for its employees to enjoy these last days of the year. 


So it is at least with a piece that I put together this week, "2011 the Year of the Bureaucrat". While many are looking back at the year that was with fondness or regret, I am looking forward to the year coming with a touch of fear. Since so much of this content being posted prior to the normal publication date, it's difficult for me to call out any specific pieces of interest this this week's TFP; but I expect that anyone who looks will find much to their liking. 


While I'm at it, I would like to express my gratitude to Tom Pounds, publisher and Michael Miller, editor-in-chief, for including my efforts in the TFP in 2010. I would further like express my wishes for a Happy New Year to Mr Pounds, Mr Miller, and everyone at the Toledo Free Press for their kindness, their friendship, and their tireless efforts in producing an outstanding product.

Happy New Year to All!

Suffer The Little Children

They say that one should never speak about politics or religion in polite society. Since I have long violated the former however, I see no reason not to occasionally violate the latter. (Besides, it could easily be argued that any blog of mine has nothing to do with polite anything.) 


Having survived a good many years of Catholic education at the grade school, high school, and college level with help and support of a number of priests and nuns; and very seriously considered entering the priesthood myself at one point, I feel that I have enough background and knowledge from which to so comment.  


So I am discomfited to say the least, by the recent pronouncements of the Catholic Church on the continuously growing scandal over child abuse by priests (for which the term least seems unfortunately appropriate). How in fact, are we to reconcile the recent end-of-the-year speech to the church hierarchy that Pope Benedict XVI made on December 20th with the behavior of those in question? Certainly we can all be encouraged by him saying, 


"We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen." 


We might be concerned about the sincerity of his message however, when this example of papal eloquence apparently seeks to blame the Church's handling of priestly child abuse by saying that the scandal of such behavior must be seen in historical social context. While accepting blame in a general way for acts that are both illegal and immoral, he appears to in some part blame society for the actions of a few priests: "In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children."

If we are to believe the sincerity of the Pope's concern (and I certainly have no reason to question it), this appears to be some twisted form of admitting guilt and accepting responsibility by blaming society. Nowhere in any part of this mea culpa, does there appear to be a true acceptance of responsibility by the Church for the illegal actions of these priests. Neither does there appear to be a condemnation of the Church's hierarchy for consistently covering up these crimes while shuffling these pedophiles from one parish to another to keep their actions from being discovered or prosecuted. There likewise appears to be no self-condemnation by an organization which ostensibly assumes the moral high ground, but was more than willing to trade money for silence over the years to protect its reputation. 


If the Catholic Church were to be judged like any other multinational corporation, a good faith effort at atonement would require that they would terminate not only the offenders, but any of those in management (Monsignors, Bishops, and Cardinals) involved with the cover up of illegal activities at the very least. And while I am not calling for the current pontiff to step down, it would certainly not be out of line to expect the CEO of such a organization to step down, or at least to condemn the actions of his predecessors for failing to take a more principled stand and more forcible action where the offenders were concerned. 


This behavior is reminiscent of the stand that the Catholic Church took during the Middle Ages, when the Church held itself above any and all secular law and refused to have churchmen judged by anything other than its own Ecclesiastical courts. And while secular courts have often proved to be less than perfect (as proved by the example of Thomas Becket during that period), attempting to consistently protect its members from judgment and from justice hardly seems in keeping with the teachings of the New Testament. 


We read in Luke 18:16: "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." It also says in Matthew 18, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." 


In light of the former quotation, it seems indefensible that those tasked by their spiritual leader in their holiest of books for the protection of innocents, should apparently abandon them in the very hour of their need. In light of the latter quotation, it seems more than contradictory that those who committed these heinous crimes brought were brought neither before a secular court nor that of the Catholic Church for the justice (if not the retribution) they deserved. In fact these loathsome malefactors were offered a form of complicit protection, and their reprehensible acts against young victims were swept under the rug by those who are supposed to represent what's best in humanity. 


While new guidelines have recently been written for dealing with future examples of these abhorrent acts, until the Church can reconcile its far too lenient treatment of the despicable perpetrators, their own pathetic enabling behavior over the years, and the complicity of those in power in cover-ups and buyouts with the Scripture that it uses as its defining document; I fear that the only suffering being done will remain that of the little children involved and their families.

Merry Christmas

The scene depicted above is one that is iconic for Kansas City, the lights of the Plaza District put up every year to celebrate the season.

In one of those strange coincidences, Christmas falls this year on a day that I normally post every weekend. In the spirit of the holiday, there is perhaps no greater gift that I can give on this day than to take it off and refrain from doing so (after all, even White Castle is closed on Christmas). Do not expect such largess to continue indefinitely; as I am not after all, the government. I am sure that after digesting the rather impressive quantities of food that I have / will consume on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, I will find the strength to return to this blog to its normal level of nonsense.

Merry Christmas

Bureaucratic Tipping Point

Like many things throughout history, government bureaucracies may have reached a tipping point in this country. Once considered essential to protection, most (like their union counterparts) have long since become little more than self-perpetuating parasites whose major, if not only concern is in increasing their own size and budget. 


These leeches have grown in number and flourished under oversight responsibilities long ignored by a Congress more concerned with re-election, bring home pork projects, and protecting their own favored status than they are about doing their jobs. But some of these agencies are beginning to reach new levels of arrogance in their continuing efforts at control of every aspect of society, while ignoring any attempts at restraint. 


Two particularly egregious examples of this occurred just this week. Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced the formation of a task force charged with "identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security". 


The idea proposed here is that the concept man caused global climate change is now a matter of national security. The claim that follows is that since the DHS is in charge of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), that it needs to extend its mandate into the areas of global climate in order to deal with flooding, wildfires, and hurricane activity caused by such climate change. 


Setting aside that most if not all of the claims tying global climate change to every recent disaster happening in the world are anecdotal, that the model changes on an almost weekly basis, and that there is little or no evidence to back them up; it nevertheless remains that the expansion of her responsibilities is not up to her. Congress in fact created the DHS after the events of 9/11, and set up its mandate under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to attempt to deal with protection from further attacks. 


In addition to creating this cabinet level department and post in the first place, Congress is further responsible for funding the department for its mandated activities. Since this funding level was set up before the current expansion, one cannot help but wonder therefore what part of their existing responsibilities they will choose to de-fund in order to take on these new ones. Considering that DHS (also in charge of the TSA) failed to recently prevent a man from accidentally bringing a loaded gun on an airplane in Houston, is facing increasing derision for the body scan and pat down policy that has proved all but useless and treats all this country's citizens as potential terrorists, and has failed almost entirely in securing the southern border of this country from the incursion of potential terrorists, continued violation of this border by illegal aliens, and the expansion of Mexican drug cartels; one would think it a tad over-reaching for this department to attempt to expand its responsibilities rather than to properly fulfill its original mandate. 


 DHS is not alone however, and the Federal Communications Commission has likewise moved this week to extend (or perhaps overextend) its regulating responsibilities. 


Yesterday the FCC adopted regulatory control of the internet in the form of "Net Neutrality". The FCC proposes to protect service providers from blocking or slowing access to certain websites, in spite of the fact that such a problem currently doesn't exist. What it will do however, is create a foothold for the FCC in controlling the internet and the beginnings of a regulatory morass that service providers and website hosts alike will have to negotiate in the future. Worse still, is the fact that doing this, the FCC is ignoring the authority of other government branches in its attempt at expansion of its mandate. Congress has already warned the FCC that it has no legal standing for interference where the internet is concerned, and will undoubtedly consider striking down this new expansion by joint resolution. Such a resolution already has wide bi-partisan support, and having the FCC ignore a letter sent to it by 30 Republican Senators last week will undoubtedly add to cry to follow through on doing so. 


Additionally, the FCC makes this move despite a ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (the court which holds authority in such matters), which told them specifically that they have no authority in the area of traffic management on the internet. 


These two agencies are not alone in writing their own rules, and this is a problem that we often see when dealing with unelected officials. The IRS and SEC can both run their hearings using a rule of 'guilty until proven innocent' regardless of the fact that this goes against existing legal principle in this country. The EPA can decide on its own to assume regulation of carbon dioxide in spite of the fact that it is a naturally produced substance. The USDA can determine the number of bake sales held as school fund raisers and the type of food that can be sold at them, whether this has anything to do with 'Agriculture' or not. 


These unelected sycophants largely ignore common sense, the rule of law, and their elected and judicial counterparts as irrelevant and temporary obstacles to the assumption of increasing power and control they deem necessary to protect us from ourselves. They deem themselves far wiser than the rest of us and above the law ... because for the most part, they are allowed to. While ostensibly operating for our protection, the only ones truly protected in all of this massive regulatory process are the increasing number of government functionaries seeking an ever greater control over every aspect of our lives. 


The increasing pace of this expansion and encroachment may now well have reached a tipping point where such continued growth becomes almost unstoppable however, and the increasing number of regulations (over 78,000 pages of them according to the Federal Register) almost insure that at some point soon every aspect of our lives will fall under the auspices of bureaucratic control and everyone will be in violation of something.