I think Mark Twain knew what he was doing

It can really be fun writing a column in this era of political
correctness and the absurdities that fall within that subject. There
are just so many of those absurdities out there that the subject
matter appears to be never-ending.

The latest of which is the rewriting of Mark Twain’s Huck Finn.
I can understand that there are those out there who do not approve of
Twain’s use of “The N-Word”, but we need to remember that in the
time this literary treasure was written, the use of the word was
pretty much universal.

But aside from the embarrassment, anger, or disgust that Twain’s use
of the word may cause some people, there are also First Amendment
issues with making changes to the work, especially when the author is
no longer around to defend his choice of language. Guarantees of
freedom of speech and freedom of the press come readily to mind here.

The book was first published in England in 1884 and in the United
States the following year. And for over 125 years it has been
recognized as one of the great American novels.

Now, all of a sudden, we have a great need to fix a novel which many
believe was written as a scathing look at racism in this country.
Changing the dialogue in Twain’s masterpiece will not only diminish
the impact of the satire, but take something valuable away from the
basic story itself - the vernacular of the southern antebellum society
of the 1860’s, the people of the time period in which the novel is
set.

All of this commotion over the language used in the book,
specifically the terms “injun” and “nigger” is nothing new. It
was criticized back when the book was first released, and even more so
as we moved into the 20th century, primarily because of its “racial
slurs”. Now, it seems, we are going to change the two words in
question to “indian” and “slave”.

I don’t know about you, but somehow I don’t believe that changing
those two words in the Huck Finn novel is going to do anything to curb
racism in the United States today. And it is certainly not going to do
anything to enhance the original satirical intent of the novel.
All this brings to mind another question.

Just who is it that determines our minds are so delicate that we need
someone to filter what we are reading, hearing or seeing?

I tend to see this attack on American literature as an infringement
on the rights of, not only the author, but also on me, the reader. I
like to think that I possess enough basic intelligence to recognize
satire when it lies before me, and I take offense at someone other
than myself attempting to protect my “sensibilities” through this
or any other form of censorship.

The purpose of the change is to try and get the book back on reading
lists in the classrooms where indignation over the terms used has
caused it to be banned. But a book that has stood as an American
classic for the past 125 years, probably needs very little help
remaining on the reading lists of those who value literature for the
sake of literature. Those who would ban it have trouble seeing
beyond their own prejudices, and project those prejudices on to the
rest of us. And if they, those who would see it banned, hold enough
sway with their local school boards and administrations, it will be
banned from some classrooms.

More’s the pity.

But don’t diminish the work to satisfy the vocal few. The work
stands on its own merits. Just by attempting to ban it, they are
engaging the discussion that the original work intended. To change it
would stifle that vital discussion.

Since it was written, the book has continued to stir the controversial subject
of racism. Just that fact alone should be enough to leave things as
they are. As time passes we are becoming more and more reluctant to
tackle an issue such as racism aloud, and tend to squelch anything
that might provoke that discussion, hoping it will go away. This
appears to be just one more case of that.

Fact is, unless you bring the subject to the forefront and beat it
down by confronting it, it will just sit festering in the background
awaiting a new opportunity to raise its ugly head.

I believe the terms “injun” and “nigger” to be offensive, not
only to those to whom the terms may be directed, but also to anyone who
believes racism to be an evil. But I also believe that if we keep
shoving the subject under the bed where no one can confront the evil,
it will never go away.

Banning two words in Twain’s classic novel can have a more detrimental
impact than you might suspect.

(I wrote this as a column for the 2-3-11 issue of NSN, but the subject of censorship pisses me off so much I thought I'd throw it in front of a few more people)

Taleb Again

I quote other people often. For one, I find quality quotes concise, interesting and obvious truths about things we often overlook. The other reason is, well, I am not all that original. After all, it is much easier to sound smart than it is to think. Some would call this intellectual plagiarism. I simply consider it edification of someone wiser. Either way, stealing quotes is not something I will be giving up any time soon, especially now that I have the latest book from Nassim Nicholas Taleb scheduled to show up in my mail box next week.

The Bed of Procrutes is a self-explained book of philosophical and practical aphorisms. From the few I have perused, I reckon these will be a bit deeper than what you would find in Poor Richard’s Almanac and maybe even a bit wittier than some of those Mark Twain penned. Either way, if his last book is any indication, I will be re-reading it multiple times.

A sampling, the first three from the first page:

The person you are the most afraid to contradict is yourself.

An Idea starts to be interesting when you get scared of taking it to its logical conclusion.

Pharmaceutical companies are better at inventing diseases that match existing drugs, rather than inventing drugs to match existing diseases.

Thought provoking. Look forward to reading the rest of it.

And yes, I expect I will be quoting from it often. (At least whenever I feel the need to sound smart.)

Being Older Equates To Being Happier

It seems, when we are young, we spend all our time trying to live up to other's expectations. When we get older, we get past that.

According to an excellent article in the Economist, The U-bend of Life, regardless of how most people view aging, getting older is actually a good thing. As the article points out:

The greyer the world gets, the brighter it becomes...

Ask a bunch of 30-year-olds and another of 70-year-olds which group they think is likely to be happier, and both lots point to the 30-year-olds. Ask them to rate their own well-being, and the 70-year-olds are the happier bunch....

Although as people move towards old age they lose things they treasure—vitality, mental sharpness and looks—they also gain what people spend their lives pursuing: happiness...

Having just been around that U-bend myself, this all seems pretty relevant.

While I was of college age, my oldest brother related something to me that has stayed with me all these years. He said that when I went to my ten year high school reunion, I would waste most of my time trying to impress everyone with how successful and cool my life had become. Then at my twenty year reunion, I may do more of the same, but to a lesser degree. Then, by the time my thirty year reunion came along, I would no longer give a damn and would actually be more interested in just being able to spend time with old friends. Although, I have always seen the logic in his observations, until now, I never realized how incredibly accurate they are.

I am finding that U-bend to be a real thing from my perspective. After a rough patch a few years ago -- the traditional "mid-life crisis", I suppose -- the last couple have been the absolute best years of my life. Stranger yet, even though I am now on the back forty, I am unusually optimistic that even better ones are yet to come.

Halloween 1992 Jerry Garcia

I just stumbled on this Jerry Garcia remake of Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London.

On a whim, I bought a plane ticket to Oakland so I could spend Halloween of ‘92 with Jerry Garcia. It was his first show since recovering from a heart attack. I met my friend Brad and a van load of his tribe from Seattle. I didn’t have a ticket for the show, but Brad was able to barter for one in the parking lot once I got there.

I hung out with a girl from Japan. I met her in the top row of the Oakland Coliseum and promptly dragged her down to the front of the stage. She was out-of-place, all dressed up, obviously having no clue about the Dead or their cultural following. She spoke very little English. I wore a t-shirt that read: “We are the people your parents warned you about.”

I was a wonderful ambassador.

Fun times.

The Mentally Ill And Terrorists

Like most twisted logic, there is always a large dose of truth in emotional diatribes. So it is with Keith Olberman’s recent rant about the “politics” behind last week's very tragic Tucson shooting.

As someone who has little political sympathy with Sarah Palin, I find it odd to come to her defense, but I find it disturbing that a political commentator would use this tragedy to rail against his own political enemies. News flash: Sarah Palin may or may not be an idiot, but she did not commit this crime. This event was committed by a deranged young man, not a “domestic terrorist” (unless of course, you believe there is an organized military movement to liberate American grammar).

I am sick of both sides using the word “terrorist” to describe anything that has to do with their opponents, and using this tragedy to try and tie this to Sarah Palin or any other politician for that matter, is simply sad. (Never mind that one of the deranged young man’s favorite reads was the Communist Manifesto. I highly doubt you will find that on Palin’s favorite reading list -- assuming she reads, of course.) Saying Jared Lee Loughner is a voice for anybody -- other than maybe Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley Jr., or Mark David Chapman -- is ludicrous.

And when Olberman gets it right, that there is too much violence in American society today, he completely ignores our government’s fascination with this activity. Violence is tragic no matter where it is committed and regardless of who is committing it. While scanning Facebook, one poster got it right when he said he “wishes everyone in America would pay as much attention to the women and children our foreign policy is murdering every day as they are over this horrible Arizona massacre. It’s easy to empathize with birds of a feather, I realize. But that doesn’t make it less hypocritical. Everyone person on this earth has a right to live free and peacefully.” (But then again, by pointing this out, maybe I am using this tragedy for my own political ends.)

In the end, giving this tragic event more meaning than it deserves is not only uncalled for, it is dangerous. As a great Op/Ed piece from the WSJ put it:

Ponder the implication of this. A deranged soul shoots a public figure and we are supposed to change our political discourse and rule certain people and opinions out of bounds based on whatever incoherent ramblings Mr. Loughner published on his website?

Every two years we hold elections so that sane Americans can make a judgment on the policies of President Obama, John Boehner, tea party candidates and so on. ...[Yet,] we are supposed to put that aside and assess what a murderer with a mental illness has to tell us about the state of American politics, government and our national dialogue.

This line of argument is itself an attack on democratic discourse, and it is amazing that it even needs to be rebutted. Taking such an argument seriously will only encourage more crazy people to believe they can trigger a national soul-searching if they shoot at a political target. We should denounce the murders and the murderer, rather than doing him the honor of suggesting that his violence flows in any explainable fashion from democratic debate.

[...] Mr. Obama can lift the level of public discourse by explaining the reality of Mr. Loughner’s illness and calling out those on the right and left who want to blame the other side for murder. That would be a genuinely Presidential act of leadership, and it would have the added advantage of being honest about the murders in Tucson.

My sympathy goes out to the victims of this senseless tragedy.

Tumbling Into Art

Sharing. What a concept, especially filtered through the eyes of an artist.

Someone shared a post from this blog somewhere along the line and it has since become part of my daily browsing routine. It also introduced me to tumblr, which I find very interesting, especially the sharing part. I am usually late to new and cool things, so I am guessing this has been around awhile, I just wasn’t paying attention.

Anyway, Looking for the Magic is a great example of tumblr's sharing aspect. This blogger’s entries are full of great photography, concise posts and best of all, well selected reposts.

Want to see blogging as art. Spend some time here. It is becoming a daily habit for me.

Don't Look Now, Here Comes Inflation...

A headline on the BBC today read: World food prices at fresh high, says UN

This can’t be so. After all, if our Expert Central Bankers are fighting deflation, how can inflation be a problem? (For those of you who do not know me too well, I am being sarcastic.)

I love that the UN attributes the problems to the weather and that the BBC perpetuates this notion. The truth is all famines are political.

So what are we really seeing? When Central Banks print money, the first to be hurt are always the world’s poorest. Inflation starts at the bottom and works it’s way up. Trillions upon trillions of “new” fiat currency is working it’s way into markets thanks to our numerous “stimulus” packages. And when you have more and more money chasing resources, the resources seem more “scarce” than they really are.

Think of it this way. There are three guys stranded on an island. One has a dollar. One has a five dollar bill. One has a spare Big Mac in his back pocket he is willing to sell. How much does he sell that extra Big Mac for? Obviously, he would sell it to the guy with the five.

Now what happens if the guy with the dollar discovers he has a one hundred dollar bill he forgot about. How much does that Big Mac sell for now? Obviously, now that he can out-bid the guy with the five, that Big Mac is not going to get purchased for anything less than that.

In this example, the Big Mac didn’t change, money did. And although scarcity matters, most people do not see the role money plays. Yet, fiat currency is the key ingredient when creating inflation stew.

And a nice big batch of inflation stew has been brewing.

Today, the simpletons in the media continue to report that rising food prices are due to floods in Australia, as if there are not floods somewhere every year. Tomorrow, they will report that rising energy prices are due to restrictions in the Middle East, as if there has not been chaos there for decades.

The truth is not that complicated, but we ignore it, or worse, we buy into the “official” story.

Just remember, with what our Central Bankers have done -- and regardless of how it is presented -- inflation is coming. Let’s just hope it is not the “hyper” variety.