StrangeSox

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) They could substitute the pc words, footnote the change with an explanation, and his intention is known and open for discussion. Repetition of the words adds no value. The casual, frequent use of such a dehumanizing word in the antibellum south was a strong point of the novel. So don't teach it in sixth grade. Wait until high school. On the other hand, my fiance is student teaching middle school English right now. Two series that are really popular with 7th graders involve a post-apocolyptic world where children are forced to fight to the death, and a story whose backdrop is a war over abortion that was finally settled by allowing parents to "abort" their children at 13 for organs. These aren't novels they're covering in class, but they're not light reads either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:59 PM) So, if a person who wound up with something of an advanced degree and who was in advanced-level classes throughout his time in the public education system didn't get that part...what fraction of American students do you think understand it? Poor teaching isn't a reason to censor a book so as to remove its meaning. If teachers can't properly put the book into context and ensure that the students understand Twain, then they shouldn't be teaching the book at all. Neutering it so that you can have kids read a "classic" just makes the situation worse. FWIW, Twain's probably my favorite writer and I think he should be taught more than he is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) Here's the question though... How many of the kids getting the correct version wind up understanding Twain's logic here? I flat out didn't. I thought it was just the style of the time. Unfortunately, you should have had a better teacher who gave you a background on Twain before you read the novel. You can't fault Twain for that. or watched the three hour Ken Burns documentary!

QUOTE (IamtheHBOMB @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:47 PM) That is the worst part about all this. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people calling for the edit don't know jack s*** about Mark Twain, the time period in which the book was published/written or the concept of satire. Context (verbal and social) is incredibly important when reading or discussing a piece of historical literature. I think a lot of people, even those who are opposed to the censorship, just assume Twain was a racist but that he was just a "product of his times." If he had written a book making some other point, and just used n***** to use the word, I'd maybe see the point in softening it. But that word is part of the foundation for the novel.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) Dammit, a friend of mine just bought a 2011 F150 XLT, the exact model I want for $21,990 and 0% financing. Must not walk into a dealer.Must not walk into a dealer.Must not walk into a dealer.Must not walk into a dealer. I didn't know you could still get an F150 for that cheap.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) I don't see how those words add value to the book. While the inclusion of the words might provoke conversation between the student and parents, chances are, it won't. An edited version of the book would be just fine with me if that's what my kids were reading. I don't love the political correctness, but school is so much different today than when I was a kid. The administration probably doesn't want to get sued by some crazy parent who objects to the words their kids are being exposed to in the book. Twain was using the word to ridicule racism. Changing it to slave removes the whole point. edit: Here's a blog from an English teacher explaining why Twain wrote what he wrote. The novel is anti-racist at its core, and removing such an ugly, painful, hurtful word removes the impact of it. http://saraegoodman.blogspot.com/2011/01/d...n-american.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Let me ask this in reply...(i may lose this argument in everyone's eyes but I'm going down fighting).../ Is there any situation where a parent (pick their race) would be justified in not wanting their child reading this book based solely on the language? In my opinion, no. Especially if they understand Twain, what his views were and the story itself.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, and pretty soon here Ronald Reagan (he is kind of a special case because there is a whole industry dedicated to rehabbing his image and trying to erase anything negative about it) pretty much have the not-so-good aspects of themselves more or less whitewashed for all intents and purposes. Pretty much, except the right will always treat FDR as the socialist devil that he was, and the left will always treat Reagan as the right-wing corporate handout and contra-funding jerk that he was.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:06 PM) Wow. Just...wow. I get what Balta's saying. If a truly good candidate has to lie to get into office to institute the best policies, or tell the truth and watch his opponent bring the government down in flames, what route should he take? But, like you, I still feel really uneasy about it and view it as a big negative against Quinn. Not that I voted for him anyway, but still.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) If we poke fun at the stupid Republicans that means we win the argument! Does this circle jerk ever get tiring for you guys? I'd say a good 1/3 of this sub-board is humor and satire, and it was a good and timely fit. Twain shouldn't be censored, and neither should the Constitution. White-washing history and white-washing reality does not serve a useful purpose in the long run.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) Co-sign this. It's not just with Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, it's the decades-long trend I started writing about above, where textbook publishers (at the demands of state departments of education) make photoshopped versions of history. What lesson is to be learned from all this? The circular logic that anything America ever does is inherently good and pure, and can never be questioned? Really that's not how the country evolved, at any given time there's been a conscience correcting things as we go. Civil Rights era, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc. It also results in hero worship of the past as some sort of golden age.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) I would say no. You don't edit a work that is a literary classic, plus it provides perspective on where we were and where we are today as a society. FWIW, n***** Jim is probably the most positive character in the book, and Twain's use was intentional. Twain was an outspoken critic of racism and imperialism and a proponent of civil rights throughout his writings, particularly in "To the Person Sitting in Darkness".

The people complaining don't have a point. The word is used by Twain for a very specific reason, and changing it to "slave" changes the impact of his writing and what his intention was. If it provokes problems, then it's problems with people who can't handle any challenging literature. This edit gives schools a chance to choose between what Twain wrote and a stripped-down version. That said, they're only planning on publishing a few thousand copies. It's all just a big publicity stunt.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) Really, there's nothing wrong with actually questioning everything. That's the basis for science in the first place. I'm not deriding skepticism. I'm deriding solipsism/however you want to define irrational, unwarranted skepticism beyond a reasonable level. Exactly. McCarthy and the rest of the anti-vaccine movement have had a direct impact on the health of this country. And it's only in a negative way.

Compensating?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) Trust me...you're better off in the long run if a politician lies to get elected and then makes painful decisions to deal with issues rather than keeping his mouth shut to get elected and then pretends that there are no long-term issues to deal with. The problem is that it ultimately still serves Republican mantras about economic and taxation policy. He never tried to make a case for it, but instead promised to fix problems without raising taxes more than a point. I know where you're going to go with that: if he said this was his plan in October, Brady would have won and (assuming Quinn's doing the right thing here) the state would be in worse shape overall. I get it. I still don't approve of lying for votes.

REPEAL NOW.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Ok, so who takes responsibility then when a doctor takes a ton of money from a pharmaceutical company, deliberately falsifies his results, and creates a cult of people who follow his guidelines, and people die because of it? The parents? The Kids? The doctors? The company(ies) involved? Or do we just pretend nothing bad is happening? STop telling Text to conform to well-established medical practices that have prevented millions of illnesses and have no causal link to autism! QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!1!!11!1!1

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 12:47 PM) I believe it is also dangerous for people to stop thinking about what goes into their body and just allow anyone with an MD to decide for them. But as soon as people take responsibility for their own decisions, other people begin to attack. You can't choose a different path, and accept the risk/rewards in out society. You must stay in lock step with everyone else. How, exactly, does the average person evaluate medicinal efficacy and causation for problems down the road? I can "think" about vaccines all I want, but the truth is I will never be in a position to evaluate their safety or efficacy. In the end, I'm going to have to rely on doctors and medical researchers to determine the best diagnoses, treatments, cures and preventions for disease. That doesn't mean you blindly trust what one physician or one report says, but you follow the body of evidence. There's no virtue in eschewing rational thought and reliance on expertise in favor of ill-informed and emotional decisions when it comes to medical care. That's not taking responsibility for a decision, it's embracing ignorance and pseudoscience. And, in the case of vaccines, it's putting others at risk.

Balta.

Example of anti-vaxxer stupidty leading to deaths of 10 infants and hospitalization of over 200:. edit: The problem is that the sick, the elderly and the very young rely on "herd immunity" since they cannot be vaccinated themselves. The idea is that, if at least a certain percentage of the population is inoculated (something like 90%), then the disease will be virtually non-existent as it won't have enough hosts to survive and spread. If you fall below that threshold, though, those who cannot get vaccinated are at risk thanks to those who voluntarily chose not to be vaccinated due to misinformed, disingenuous or outright lies from anti-vaccine pseudoscience.

Still, it looks bad. Even if he's doing what he thinks is the right thing, he lied in the election because he knew it would get him votes. Maybe he sees the writing on the wall that this will be his only term and doesn't care.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) I wouldn't be so quick to judge. My kids are vaccinated, so I'm not really on her side of the debate, but if some of the things that happened to her happened to me, I could see myself searching for answers. I think your post was fine without the "edit" I would. I understand someone searching for answers to a tragedy, but that doesn't excuse jumping onto the anti-vaccine bandwagon, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (while having none to support your position) and causing demonstrable, measurable harm in the process. If this was a different board, I wouldn't have phrased my dislike of her so nicely.

My realistic expectations are 80 HR's and 2.000 OPS. 50 WAR, minium. QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) In his interviews, he said one of the reasons he likes Chicago is the Portillo's Italian beef sandwiches. So maybe that will get him moving! And I was just wondering where to go for lunch

Yeah, I've no problem with legitimate research into vaccine safety and efficacy. People do suffer adverse consequences from them on rare occasions. Just not autism.