Censorship and Revisionist History

I heard on the news yesterday that a special revised edition of Mark Twain's classics "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will be published in which occurrences of the word "nigger" will be replaced by the more politically correct word "slave."
Yes, "nigger" is a terrible, hateful word that harkens back to a dark period of American history. But I cannot condone changing the text of these classic works of fiction in an attempt to hide, sanitize, or avoid this history. The fact is it existed, and we are better or worse (better, I hope) for having lived through it. Hiding evil in dark places only serves to nurture it. Better to examine it under the full light of truth.
Mark Twain did not include the word "nigger" in his books because he was racist. He included it because use of this word was a reality of the time and place. According to the news story, Twain was married to an abolitionist and firmly supported it's principles.
I am a rabid opponent of any kind of censorship in any media. To me, revising Mark Twain's books is a form of censorship. My mother taught me a very important quote which I follow to this day:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I hope schools will continue to read, study and discuss the original versions of his books.

Scrooge Really Wasn't Such a Bad Guy

Okay, so I am one of those people (and maybe the only one) who have always felt that Ebenezer Scrooge, from Dicken's classic "A Christmas Carol", got a bad rap. Sure he was miserly with his money, but where would ineffectual Bob Crachit and his needy family be at the end of the story if Scrooge had not stockpiled his hard-earned savings instead of spending them like a wanton profligate?
And, with his low-paying clerical job, where does Bob Crachit get off having six kids without first having the means to support them? Isn't this just a tad irresponsible? Maybe he and Mrs. Crachit should have practiced a little birth control before poor little Tiny Tim came along. At least Scrooge was self-sufficient, which is more than can be said for Bob Crachit.
The problem with Scrooge isn't that he made a lot of money or even the manner in which he amassed his fortune (primarily through money lending.) Scrooge's big sin is that he hoarded his money and didn't spread it around. Money must be shared and spent to keep the economy and society happy. I'm sure Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg would agree.

Fuck You, Bob Saget!

So, a few nights ago a forty-something friend and I went to see Bob Saget. I mention our age only because I think it might have been relevant to our level of enjoyment of his show. (That and our relative level of intelligence.)
When my friend phoned to invite me, my first thought was Bob Saget? You mean the guy from "Full House" and "America's Funniest Home Videos"? That Bob Saget? He does stand up comedy? I was to learn that yes, indeed, Bob Saget does stand up comedy and he is in fact quite raunchy and filthy while doing it.
That's not why I didn't really enjoy the show. I like raunch and filth as much as the next person. I enjoy no-holds-barred, irreverant, politically-incorrect comedy. Bring it on! But it still has to be clever comedy. Sadly, this was not.
I should have had an inkling from the audience demographic. It was overwhelming young and male. There was a lot of beer and testosterone in the room.
For those uninitiated in the ritual that is Bob Saget comedy, basically it involves a lot of audience interaction, most of it quite unpleasant. I would categorize it as "humour by humiliation." And it seems to be an accepted two-way street judging by the guy sitting behind me who, in the middle of the show, yelled out at the top of his voice: "Fuck You, Bob Saget!", followed by much laughter and cheering from the audience. Bob apparently doesn't mind and will tell you to "shut the fuck up", too when he's not telling rambling stories about his Dad.
I think I laughed once -- maybe twice -- during the whole show when a girl in the audience said her name was "Hailey, like the comet." Bob's witty comeback: "Does that mean you only come every 22 years."
Okay, that was clever. But not worth the price of the ticket. Thank God we didn't pay other than in the wasted time we will never get back.

THISLDO

Driving home tonight I saw the following personalized licence plate: THISLDO. It was on a Hyundai Touring SUV. It made me smile, because I really believe our consumerism has been running amok during the past decade. People have been completely spending beyond their means to buy bigger and more "stuff." We are working longer hours (thank you, Internet and cellphone for making this possible) to make more money to buy even more stuff that we really don't need and often will never use.
So, it was refreshing to see THISLDO and the sentiment it encapsulates: I'm happy with what I have and I don't need more. I don't need to "keep up with the Joneses."
Listen, these days the Joneses are in bankruptcy protection because of years of greed and profligacy. There's no need to keep up with them anymore because they are totally f*cking broke.
Two years ago in November, a security guard was crushed to death by a seething horde of shoppers pressing to enter a Walmart in the U.S. This was on "Black Friday", the big shopping day following American Thanksgiving when companies "in the red" hope to get back "into the black" through a big day of consumer spending.
When the value of a human life becomes less important than saving a few bucks on a flat screen TV we are in big, big trouble.
So, good for you THISLDO. Maybe there's hope for us yet.

Quote of the Day

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
-- Voltaire

A toilet by any other name would still smell as bad!

I'm reading Bill Bryson's new book "At Home: A Short History of Private Life" and in it there is a section about the small rooms off the bedchamber, including the cabinet and the privy.

"In England the cabinet became the most exclusive and private of all chambers -- the innermost sanctum where the most private meetings could take place... Often this private room had a small cell or alcove off it, generally known as the privy but also called, among other things, jakes, latrine, draughts, place of easement, necessarium, garderobe, house of office, or gong. Whatever it was called, this room contained a bench with a hole in it, strategically positioned over a long drop into a moat or deep shaft." (p. 61)

I feel a real affinity for Bill Bryson and love all his books. They are full of fascinating details like this. And, in fact, during my summer holidays this year, I spent some time pondering all the various synonyms for the word "toilet." (Yes, this is actually how my mind works.) I thought it would make a neat party game, if you were to put a blank sheet of paper (and pen) on the door to the washroom in your house and have your guests fill in all the different words for "washroom" (past and present) that they can think of before "spending a penny." It would truly be a lexicographic laugh-in!

Here's some of mine, to get the ball rolling:

washroom
toilet
head
porcelain throne
water closet
bathroom
powder room
ladies' room/men's room (or "little girls' room" if you are being cutesy)
facilities
john
loo
can
dunny
bog
outhouse (okay, this last one is kind of a cheat, since it would be located outside the house itself. Ditto, porta-potty.)

I can't think of any more right now. And, besides, I have to take a break and use the necessarium.

Technological Selection?

The Globe & Mail Focus section on Saturday, September 25th had an article on cellphones and cancer. An epidemiologist, Devra Davis, has even written a book about it called "Disconnect."

I have always been one of the cellphone holdouts, staunchly refusing to jump on the bandwagon, or cellwagon as the case may be. But this has been for more private "I'd-rather-be-unlugged-and-unavailable" reasons. And how f*cking annoying people can be when talking on their cellphones in public spaces. Therefore, each article I read linking cellphone use with health problems just reinforces my dislike for the insidious little devices. (Reading Stephen King's novel "Cell" where cellphone users turn into zombies didn't hurt either.)

According to the Globe article: "Several studies, including an exhaustive review released this year by the World Health Organization's cancer-research agency, find that people who have used cellphones for half an hour a day for more than a decade have about twice the risk of glioma, a rare kind of brain tumour, on the side of their head where they hold the phone. Glioma is usually fatal."

The article explains that "cellphones operate on microwaves, sent and received by antennas on the back of the devices. Some people compare holding these phones to pressing tiny microwave ovens next to our heads." Or groins, for those who clip their phones onto belts.

So, I can't help but wonder if years from now (since brain cancers can take decades to develop) there will be whole segments of the human population weeded out by "technological selection", that is systemic health problems and death due to the use of harmful technology like cellphones. Think how many people use cellphones now on a daily basis. (The article estimates there are a whopping five billion subscriptions worldwide!)

With "technological selection" we will only have ourselves to blame.