Which Constitution Should be Read, Amended or Non-Amended?

In the last few weeks, I've been noticing an interesting roster of stories that all lead to the reality that people really are just uncomfortable with American history.  We have people celebrating secession in South Carolina, a governor who declared that segregation wasn't that bad, altering Mark Twain, and now we have the Republican led U.S. House reading an amended copy of the U.S. Constitution.  Columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. reminded his readers (particularly African American readers, though all Americans should heed his words) that bearing witness to the actual past is, without question, imperative.

So, the idea of reading the U.S. Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives didn't really do too much for me.  I am of the mind that the people who fetishize the document, of late, are often among the most determined to change it to meet their political tastes.  But I did think, at the very least, that in this bit of theatre, the actual Founding Fathers' written document would be read.  Then again, I suppose reading the 3/5ths clause or the two amendments related to prohibition, for example, didn't really fit the agenda.  So, I wonder when we will actually have a reading of the actual, non-amended to take out the bad stuff, U.S. Constitution.  I won't hold my breath for this Congress.

Lauryn, Lauryn, Lauryn

This is what I get for taking some time during the holidays.  I only heard about the shenanigans from singer Lauryn Hill just the other day.  Sista was four hours late to her own concert in Brooklyn, and allegedly said that she was worth the wait.  Now, and this is no lie, the first thing that came into my head after I heard this was Hill's brilliantly hot song "Lost Ones."  You can check the chorus to see why, and it is clear that at least one person at that concert thought exactly the same thing (I fell out when I pulled up the article on the New York Times to write this post).

I know that Hill has been through a whole lot of things, but being prompt for an event where one is the top act is just a matter of common courtesy and respect for the fans who love you.  But on that day, Hill may have lost more than just one fan in that concert hall, and "it's so silly how come."

Here is a Legitimate Example of PC Silliness

If the facts are as they are mentioned here, then there is no reason that this reporter should not get his job back (oh, and this is not a parallel to Navy Captain Honors use of "faggot").  It's always about context.

My Wiki-Thoughts

I want to go back in time a bit to an article by Glenn Greenwald of Salon that really caught my attention related to the whole WikiLeaks controversy. 

In his article, Greenwald raises the following question regarding the publication of this New York Times article:  "The question that emerges from all of this is obvious, but also critical for those who believe WikiLeaks and Julian Assange should be prosecuted for the classified information they have published:  should the NYT editors and reporters who just spilled America's secrets to the world be criminally prosecuted as well?"

I think that it is a very good question.  I have friends and family who are currently working, or have worked, in intelligence, and to a person, they are truly bothered by what Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is doing in revealing what it has revealed.  But I did ask one relative a similar question.  What is different about what WikiLeaks does and what investigative reporters do for news organizations?  And why is one considered a terrorist by some, and others considered heroes (like Woodward and Bernstein with Watergate)?

No one wants his or her privacy violated, and that is understandable.  But until we can answer Greenwald's question, then I think it is silly to call Assange a terrorist (like the one we dropped the ball on finding a few years ago).

Sex, Showers and Videotape

Maybe it's because I went to a men's college that I didn't get all up in arms about Captain Honors' sophomoric video for the USS Enterprise.  Of course there were things in the vid clip that were offensive, stupid, and not particularly funny, but this is also part and parcel with military culture (trust me, I've spent time with my pops and his Marine Corps buddies, and I winced often).  I am not convinced that relieving Honors from his command was the right remedy, if it was related solely to this video.

Yet, there are two aspects of this whole thing that I do find fascinating, if not a little annoying.  First, I am sick and tired of people crying political correctness when people are rightly upset when someone uses terms like "nigger," and "faggot" in the ways that are indeed meant to hurt and demean.  It's a defense of simply being offensive.  "It's just PC bullshit that I can't call that faggot a faggot."  But, I don't expect many who are quick to make that type of argument to understand my point. 

Second, I really and truly do not understand the fascination that some straight men have with gay male sex, particularly if they say they are uncomfortable with the idea of gay sex.  I don't obsess over straight folks having sex.  Actually, I could care less, even though I am inundated with those images continually.  I just find it strange, thinking of the Honors' video, that one would even be interested in creating images of simulated or implied gay male sex (way too many of my straight friends are completely sold on lipstick lesbian sex, but that is a wholly different issue).  My guess is that when the ladies sharing the shower was shown to the carrier's crew, there were approving hoots, hollers and cat calls.  And I am betting when the many more images of the guys being "gay" came up...well I don't think I need to explain it.

So, I am not bent all out of shape on this issue, but the responses and the silences have been fascinating to read (or not read).  Oh, and for those supporters of Honors, is the support for allowing him to be offensive to gay folks (especially in light of the ending of DADT), protesting his removal from command simply because of the video, or something else?  I wonder if more are offering support for the former, and using the latter (and more reasonable reason for support) as cover.

Let Twain Stand

I was reading a post at Jack and Jill Politics that mentioned that a new edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  I read the Publisher's Weekly article referenced in the JJP post, and I have to say that I totally disagree with the move to replace "nigger" with slave.  I feel that this is all about historical context, and students need to be made aware of that context.  I was made aware of that context when I was in school, and the same was true when I read the short novel The Nigger of the "Narcissus." 

I fully recognize that "nigger" is a term that jars almost universally, but altering literary texts that use the term seems a bridge too far.  Students need to ask why "nigger" was used, or whether or not its use was really that prominent in the late 19th century, when these books were written.  I certainly can discern whether someone is using "nigger" in a negative and hurtful fashion, or simply describing a situation or work of literature that he/she has encountered.  I know that I am not alone in that capacity.  Why not let that type of discussion take place?  A teacher is then able to teach the text and have an interesting discussion about the use of words and historical contexts.  I think those are good things for students.

Leave Twain's work as it was found.

I Would Lay Money Down That...

...this guy rails against affirmative action.